Kelly Chavez v. Martin J. O'Malley, 96 F.4th 1016

Kelly Chavez applied for supplemental security income (SSI) in 2019, claiming disability since 2007 due to various severe mental and physical impairments.
Her application was denied, and after initial and reconsideration denials, she was granted a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ).
At a supplemental hearing, a new vocational expert (VE), Sarah Holmes, testified about jobs Chavez could perform, relying on the Job Browser Pro software for job numbers.
Chavez’s attorney questioned the VE’s methodology for estimating job numbers but did not pursue the VE’s offer to provide detailed explanation of the process.
The ALJ ruled Chavez was not disabled, finding the VE's testimony reliable; the district court affirmed, and Chavez appealed to the Seventh Circuit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Reliability of Vocational Expert’s Job Numbers	Holmes’s testimony is unreliable because she could not explain Job Browser Pro’s formula during the hearing	Holmes is a qualified expert, used widely-accepted methods, and offered further information when asked	VE's testimony was reliable; ALJ properly relied on it
Methodological Transparency	Failure to explain Job Browser Pro’s internal formula renders the VE’s estimates insubstantial	SSA precedents do not require VEs to fully explain or disclose proprietary algorithms if general method is explained	VE’s lack of detailed formula did not preclude substantial evidence finding
ALJ’s Duties in Evaluating VE Testimony	ALJ should have required a more thorough explanation or independently pursued the specifics of Job Browser Pro’s method	ALJ is not required to pursue lines of questioning plaintiff’s counsel abandons, if VE's general explanation is reasonable	ALJ acted appropriately under the substantial evidence standard
Handling of Plaintiff’s Objections	ALJ failed to adequately address objections about the reliability and matching of SOC/DOT codes and “top down methodology”	ALJ considered objections, questioned VE further, and explained reasons for rejection of objections	ALJ’s treatment of objections was proper; ruling affirmed

Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148 (2019) (rejecting categorical rules; case-by-case review of vocational expert testimony sufficiency)
Gedatus v. Saul, 994 F.3d 893 (7th Cir. 2021) (deferential standard of review for ALJ decisions; substantial evidence standard)
Skinner v. Astrue, 478 F.3d 836 (7th Cir. 2007) (standard for judicial review of SSA decisions)
Liskowitz v. Astrue, 559 F.3d 736 (7th Cir. 2009) (ALJ may rely on VE testimony using generally accepted statistical sources)
Brace v. Saul, 970 F.3d 818 (7th Cir. 2020) (importance of reliable methodology in converting SOC to DOT job numbers)
Fetting v. Kijakazi, 62 F.4th 332 (7th Cir. 2023) (VE must provide enough methodological detail to instill confidence)
Ruenger v. Kijakazi, 23 F.4th 760 (7th Cir. 2022) (matching problem between SOC codes and DOT titles)
Leisgang v. Kijakazi, 72 F.4th 216 (7th Cir. 2023) (criticisms of equal distribution method but affirming ALJ decision based on VE testimony)