Affirmation of ALJ's Decision in Leisgang v. Kijakazi: Forfeiture of Vocational Expert's Methodology Challenge

Introduction

In the case of Michael A. Leisgang v. Kilolo Kijakazi, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit addressed key issues regarding the procedural requirements for challenging a vocational expert's (VE) methodology in Social Security disability claims. Michael Leisgang, the plaintiff-appellant, sought Social Security benefits based on severe mental health conditions, including depression, anxiety, and a personality disorder, which he claimed rendered him unable to work. The defendant-appellee, Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, denied his claim following an administrative law judge's (ALJ) evaluation. The core dispute on appeal centered on whether the ALJ sufficiently scrutinized the VE’s methodology and whether Leisgang appropriately preserved his arguments against it.

Summary of the Judgment

The ALJ employed the five-step Social Security disability determination process to evaluate Leisgang's claim. At the fifth step, the assessment focused on whether Leisgang could perform other jobs available in significant numbers within the national economy, despite his limitations. A vocational expert testified that Leisgang could perform simple, routine jobs such as kitchen helper, sweeper/cleaner, or hospital cleaner, estimating substantial numbers of these positions nationwide using the Occupational Employment Quarterly and the equal distribution method.

Leisgang did not object to the VE's methodology during the hearing or thereafter, thereby forfeiting his right to challenge it on appeal. The ALJ concluded, supported by substantial evidence, that Leisgang was not disabled as he could perform jobs within his limitations. The district court affirmed the ALJ’s decision, and the Seventh Circuit upheld this affirmation, rejecting Leisgang's appeal.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced the precedent established in Fetting v. Kijakazi, 62 F.4th 332 (7th Cir. 2023), which emphasizes the necessity for claimants to object to VE testimony during administrative hearings to preserve disputes for appellate review. Additionally, the court cited LISKOWITZ v. ASTRUE, 559 F.3d 736 (7th Cir. 2009), reinforcing the principle that failure to object during the hearing results in forfeiture of the argument on appeal.

The court also referred to Chavez v. Berryhill, 895 F.3d 962 (7th Cir. 2018), criticizing the SSA's outdated methods for estimating job numbers and highlighting the ongoing need for a modernized approach. Other cases like Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148 (2019), and Karr v. Saul, 989 F.3d 508 (7th Cir. 2021), were cited to clarify standards for substantial evidence and the reliability of medical opinions.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning centered on the principle that substantial evidence supports an ALJ’s factual findings unless clearly unsupported. In this case, the ALJ's reliance on the VE's methodology was deemed appropriate because Leisgang did not challenge it during the hearing. Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), "substantial evidence" is a low threshold, requiring only that a reasonable mind might accept the evidence as adequate.

The court emphasized that procedural rules require claimants to preserve issues by timely objections. Leisgang’s failure to specifically object to the VE’s use of the Occupational Employment Quarterly and the equal distribution method meant that the appellate court could not consider these arguments. The court highlighted that ALJs are in the best position to evaluate the reliability of VE methodologies and that the onus is on claimants to clearly articulate their objections during proceedings.

Moreover, the court acknowledged criticism of the equal distribution method but concluded that, absent clear indication from Leisgang that the methodology was flawed in this case, the ALJ was justified in relying on the VE's estimates. The court also addressed secondary arguments concerning the ALJ’s treatment of medical reports, affirming that the ALJ appropriately weighed conflicting medical opinions and supported conclusions with substantial evidence.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the crucial procedural requirement for claimants to object specifically to VE methodologies during administrative hearings to retain the ability to contest them on appeal. It underscores the deference appellate courts must give to ALJs’ factual determinations supported by substantial evidence. Additionally, the decision highlights ongoing concerns with the SSA's methods for estimating job availability, potentially prompting further judicial scrutiny and legislative action to modernize these processes.

For practitioners, the case serves as a critical reminder to ensure that any methodological concerns regarding vocational experts are promptly and explicitly raised during hearings. Failure to do so can irrevocably limit the avenues for appellate review, as demonstrated by Leisgang’s forfeiture of his argument.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Five-Step Test: A standard procedure used by the Social Security Administration to determine disability, assessing the severity of impairment, inability to perform past work, ability to perform other work, and availability of suitable jobs.
Vocational Expert (VE): A specialist who assesses a claimant’s ability to work given their limitations and identifies possible job opportunities in the economy.
Substantial Evidence: A legal standard that requires evidence to be more than a mere scintilla but not necessarily absolute; it must be sufficient for a reasonable mind to accept as adequate.
Forfeiture: Legal doctrine where a party loses the right to raise an issue because they failed to preserve it properly, typically by not raising it in the initial proceedings.
Equal Distribution Method: A statistical method used by the VE to estimate the number of available jobs by distributing them equally across various occupations, regardless of economic or industry-specific factors.

Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit’s affirmation in Leisgang v. Kijakazi underscores the imperative for Social Security claimants to diligently preserve their objections during administrative hearings. By failing to challenge the VE's methodology in real-time, Leisgang forfeited his right to contest it on appeal, resulting in the upholding of the ALJ’s decision. This judgment not only reiterates procedural mandates but also calls attention to the need for modernizing vocational assessment tools within the SSA framework. For legal practitioners and claimants alike, the case highlights the importance of strategic advocacy and the critical role of timely, specific objections in administrative proceedings.