Introduction

The case of Karrine Milhem v. Kilolo Kijakazi addresses a pivotal issue in the evaluation of Social Security Disability benefits: the interpretation of what constitutes a "significant number" of jobs in the national economy. Decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on November 4, 2022, this case scrutinizes the procedural and substantive aspects of the Social Security Administration's (SSA) five-step sequential evaluation process, particularly focusing on step five, which assesses a claimant’s ability to adjust to other types of work existing in the national economy.

Summary of the Judgment

Karrine Milhem, at the age of thirty-eight with a background in various professions, applied for Social Security disability benefits citing multiple health issues that impeded her ability to work. Her claims were initially denied and subsequently upheld upon reconsideration. The case proceeded to an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) who employed the SSA's five-step evaluation. The crux of the ALJ’s decision hinged on step five, determining that Milhem could adjust to perform 89,000 jobs existing in the national economy, thereby deeming her not disabled under SSA criteria.

Milhem appealed this decision, arguing that 89,000 jobs do not represent a "significant number" of jobs necessary for the step-five determination. However, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the ALJ's decision, referencing prior case law and emphasizing the discretionary power of the ALJ in interpreting what constitutes a significant number of jobs based on substantial evidence.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references previous cases to substantiate its stance on the interpretation of "significant number" of jobs:

• Weatherbee v. Astrue, 649 F.3d 565 (7th Cir. 2011): This case established that 140,000 national jobs are considered "well above the threshold for significance," providing a benchmark for future determinations.
• LISKOWITZ v. ASTRUE, 559 F.3d 736 (7th Cir. 2009): This decision noted that 1,000 jobs in the regional economy satisfy the significant number requirement, though it primarily focused on regional rather than national figures.
• Plessinger v. Berryhill, 900 F.3d 909 (7th Cir. 2018): Highlighted that broader arguments not raised in lower courts are considered waived, impacting Milhem's appeal strategy.
• Other cited cases include Barker v. Secretary of HHS, TRIMIAR v. SULLIVAN, and JENKINS v. BOWEN, which collectively illustrate varying interpretations of job significance across different circuits.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning pivots on several key legal principles:

• Discretion of the ALJ: The ALJ possesses discretionary authority to determine what constitutes a "significant number" of jobs on a case-by-case basis, guided by substantial evidence and considering factors like the claimant’s age, education, and work experience.
• Substantial Evidence Standard: The appellate court adopts a deferential standard, affirming decisions if supported by substantial evidence, which is not a high threshold but ensures that the ALJ's findings are reasonable and based on credible evidence.
• National vs. Regional Job Numbers: The distinction between national and regional job counts is critical. The court emphasized that significant numbers pertain to the national economy, and prior cases sometimes conflated regional figures, which Milhem unsuccessfully attempted to leverage.
• No Categorical Rule Required: The absence of a stringent regulatory definition for "significant" was deemed acceptable, as the regulation grants ALJs the discretion to interpret this term without necessitating a fixed numerical threshold.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the ALJ’s broad discretion in interpreting "significant" job numbers within the national economy during disability evaluations. By upholding the ALJ’s determination that 89,000 jobs meet the significance threshold, the court:

• Affirms the flexibility and case-by-case assessment inherent in SSA disability determinations.
• Sets a reaffirmed benchmark through the cited Weatherbee case, potentially guiding future ALJs and courts in similar evaluations.
• Clarifies that while regional job figures are lower, significant national numbers can still substantiate the claimant’s ability to engage in substantial gainful activity.
• Affirms that challenges to the "significance" finding must be substantiated by presenting a contrary precedent, which in this case, Milhem failed to do effectively.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Understanding the legal intricacies of Social Security Disability evaluations requires familiarization with specific concepts and terminologies:

• Five-Step Sequential Evaluation: A framework used by SSA to assess disability claims, encompassing current work status, severity of impairment, meeting listed impairments, residual functional capacity (RFC), and ability to perform other significant work.
• Residual Functional Capacity (RFC): An assessment of a claimant’s remaining ability to perform work despite their impairments, considering physical and mental limitations.
• Significant Number of Jobs: While not numerically fixed, this term refers to a substantial pool of jobs in the national economy that a claimant could potentially perform given their RFC.
• Substantial Gainful Activity (SGA): Activities involving significant physical or mental effort, performed for pay or profit, that can affect eligibility for disability benefits.
• Administrative Law Judge (ALJ): An attorney who presides over SSA hearings, making determinations based on evidence and regulations.

Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit's affirmation in Karrine Milhem v. Kilolo Kijakazi underscores the judicial deference to ALJs in interpreting "significant number" of jobs within the national economy for Social Security Disability claims. By validating the ALJ's determination based on substantial evidence and existing case law, the court reinforces the discretionary authority of administrative judges while maintaining a flexible, evidence-based approach to disability evaluations. This decision not only upholds Milhem's denial but also solidifies the procedural standards for future disability adjudications, ensuring consistency and reasonableness in SSA’s benefit determinations.