Introduction

The case of August Fetting, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee (62 F.4th 332, 7th Cir. 2023) addresses the critical issue of disability determination under the Social Security Act. August Fetting sought supplemental security income (SSI) due to his physical and mental impairments, including back pain, headaches, depression, and anxiety. Despite these limitations, his application was denied by the Social Security Administration (SSA) based on the assertion that he could perform certain jobs available in the national economy.

The primary contention on appeal revolved around whether the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) finding—that significant numbers of jobs existed in the national economy that Fetting could perform—was supported by substantial evidence. This commentary delves into the court's decision, exploring the legal principles applied, precedents cited, and the broader implications for disability determinations under the SSA.

Summary of the Judgment

The case progressed from the ALJ's initial denial of Fetting's SSI application to the District Court, which upheld the ALJ's decision. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit focused exclusively on the sufficiency of evidence supporting the ALJ's determination that Fetting could engage in work within the national economy.

The ALJ had relied heavily on the testimony of a vocational expert (VE), who estimated the availability of jobs for roles such as cleaner/housekeeper, routing clerk, and marker, citing approximately 200,000, 40,000, and 200,000 positions respectively. Fetting contested the VE's methodology, arguing it was unreliable. However, the court found that Fetting had forfeited these objections by not adequately challenging the VE's testimony during the administrative hearing.

Ultimately, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the lower courts' decisions, holding that the evidence supporting the existence of significant numbers of jobs was substantial and that the ALJ acted within the bounds of the law.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The court referenced several key precedents in its decision:

• Clifford v. Apfel: Outlined the five-step inquiry process used by SSA to determine disability.
• Ruenger v. Kijakazi: Emphasized the agency's burden to demonstrate significant job availability.
• Biestek v. Berryhill: Discussed the reliance on vocational experts and the standards for their testimony.
• Chavez v. Berryhill: Addressed the sufficiency of vocational experts' methodologies.
• Brown v. Colvin and LISKOWITZ v. ASTRUE: Provided guidance on the forfeiture of objections in administrative hearings.

These cases collectively guided the court in evaluating the reliability of the VE's testimony and the procedural adherence of the claimant in preserving objections.

Legal Reasoning

The court applied a structured approach to determine whether the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence:

1. Forfeiture of Objections: The court established that Fetting failed to specifically object to the VE's methodology during the hearing or in post-hearing submissions, thereby forfeiting his right to challenge it on appeal.
2. Substantial Evidence Standard: The court reiterated that the SSA operates under a "substantial evidence" standard, requiring enough relevant evidence for a reasonable mind to accept the conclusion.
3. Reliability of the VE's Testimony: The VE's methodology, though not overly precise, was deemed reliable as it was based on publicly available data from the Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) and the VE's extensive professional experience.

The court concluded that the ALJ appropriately relied on the VE's testimony, as it met the substantial evidence threshold and followed established methodological practices.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the standards and procedural requirements for SSI applicants challenging disability determinations. Key implications include:

• Preservation of Objections: Claimants must explicitly and specifically object to any aspect of the VE's testimony during administrative hearings to preserve the right to challenge such evidence on appeal.
• Evaluation of VE Methodologies: Vocational experts are afforded significant deference as long as their methodologies are grounded in recognized data sources and professional experience, even if not highly precise.
• Agency Burden: Strengthens the agency's position in demonstrating the existence of significant job opportunities for claimants with disabilities, affecting how future cases may be adjudicated.

Legal practitioners advising clients on SSI applications must emphasize the importance of meticulously challenging all facets of EE (employment evidence) during hearings to avoid forfeiture of critical arguments.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Substantial Evidence Standard

This standard does not require absolute certainty but rather that a reasonable amount of relevant evidence exists to support the decision. It ensures that decisions are based on more than mere speculation.

Residual Functional Capacity (RFC)

RFC refers to a person's remaining ability to perform work-related activities despite their disabilities. It's a crucial factor in determining eligibility for disability benefits.

Forfeiture of Objections

If a claimant does not specifically object to certain evidence or testimony during the hearing, they may lose the right to challenge it later in appeals.

Conclusion

The Fetting v. Kijakazi decision underscores the importance of procedural rigor in SSA disability claims. By affirming the ALJ's reliance on a vocational expert's testimony, the court highlighted the balance between claimant advocacy and the agency's evidence-based determinations.

For claimants, the case serves as a cautionary tale on the necessity of actively and specifically contesting any unfavorable evidence during administrative proceedings. For legal practitioners and the SSA, it reinforces the established standards and the deference given to vocational assessments grounded in credible methodologies.

Overall, this judgment contributes to the ongoing discourse on disability determination, emphasizing the need for clarity, precision, and procedural adherence to ensure fair and just outcomes for all parties involved.