Brault v. Social Security Administration
683 F.3d 443
| 2d Cir. | 2012Background
- Brault applied for disability benefits in Sept. 2007, alleging disability since Sept. 2006 due to left-arm nerve damage and cervical spine injury from a car crash.
- ALJ found Brault proved disability at steps 1–4; at step 5 relied on VE to find other work Brault could perform.
- VE testified eight DOT-based occupations; used OEQ data to estimate job numbers for national and Vermont economies.
- Brault challenged VE’s SOC-to-DOT mapping methodology as unreliable and debated data crosswalking; ALJ allowed briefing but did not clearly address objections.
- District Court affirmed SSA denial; the Second Circuit reviews for substantial evidence, not de novo disability determination, and addresses the VE reliability issue.
- Court holds ALJ’s reliance on VE evidence was supported by substantial evidence and no reversible legal error was shown.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ALJ needed to state explicit reasons for accepting VE testimony. | Brault argues the ALJ must explain rejection of VE data. | Brault’s contention is unsupported; ALJ need not state every reason. | No explicit articulation required beyond substantial evidence standard. |
| Whether the ALJ was required to inquire into the VE’s challenged data. | Brault cites Donahue and related Seventh Circuit rules demanding inquiry. | No universal duty to inquire; inquiry already occurred via cross-examination and briefing. | Not required to conduct Daubert-like inquiry; substantial evidence standard applied. |
| Whether crosswalk-based SOC-to-DOT data can be used to estimate job numbers. | Crosswalking is unreliable and may misrepresent DOT-title specifics. | OEQ data, even if SOC-based, is an acceptable source aiding vocational determinations. | OEQ data permissible; substantial evidence supports VE’s numbers. |
Key Cases Cited
- Butts v. Barnhart, 388 F.3d 377 (2d Cir. 2004) (affirming substantial-evidence review in SSA disability decisions)
- Donahue v. Barnhart, 279 F.3d 441 (7th Cir. 2002) (discusses ALJ inquiry when VE testimony is challenged)
- McKinnie v. Barnhart, 368 F.3d 907 (7th Cir. 2004) (requires VE data availability on demand when challenged)
- Lawrence v. Astrue, 337 F. App’x 579 (7th Cir. 2009) (unpublished; noted data foundation issues with VE testimony)
- Liskowitz v. Astrue, 559 F.3d 736 (7th Cir. 2009) (rejects per se rule requiring precise part-time job counts; supports substantial evidence approach)
- Kelley v. Apfel, 185 F.3d 1211 (11th Cir. 1999) (discusses part-time work at Step Five; not controlling here)
- Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2005) (confirms VE testimony can rely on general sources without exhaustive data)
- Galiotti v. Astrue, 266 F. App’x 66 (2d Cir. 2008) (VE testimony suffices if sources identified; not require detailed documentation)