Michael Leisgang v. Kilolo Kijakazi, 72 F.4th 216

Michael Leisgang applied in 2019 for SSI and DIB alleging depression, anxiety, and a personality disorder that left him unable to work.
An ALJ found an RFC limiting him to simple, routine, repetitive work; no rapid production pace; few changes in routine; and only occasional interaction with supervisors, coworkers, and the public.
A vocational expert (VE) testified that, given those limitations, Leisgang could work as a kitchen helper, sweeper/cleaner, or hospital cleaner and estimated large national job counts using the Occupational Employment Quarterly and the equal-distribution method (with DOL job titles dating to 1977).
Leisgang’s counsel briefly asked about the VE’s methodology; the VE said the equal-distribution method was the only tool he had. Counsel did not object to the methodology or otherwise preserve the issue at the hearing or in posthearing filings.
The ALJ denied benefits at step five relying on the VE’s testimony; the district court affirmed. On appeal Leisgang challenged (1) the VE’s job-number methodology and (2) the ALJ’s treatment of two clinicians’ opinions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Reliability of VE job-number estimates / preservation	VE’s use of the equal-distribution method produced unreliable, inflated job numbers; ALJ should have ensured methodology was sound	Claimant forfeited the challenge by failing to object at the hearing; VE testimony was not facially implausible and substantial evidence supports the decision	Forfeited. Leisgang failed to preserve a specific objection; substantial evidence supports ALJ’s reliance on the VE absent a timely, specific challenge
ALJ’s treatment of medical opinions (Drs. Donahoo and Yim)	ALJ selectively credited Donahoo and improperly discounted restrictive opinions (including Yim’s extreme limitations)	ALJ reasonably adopted Donahoo’s core limitations while rejecting vague phrasing; ALJ permissibly discounted Yim’s extreme opinion as inconsistent with her own treatment notes and the record showing improvement	Affirmed. ALJ reasonably incorporated Donahoo’s findings and properly discounted Yim’s opinion as inconsistent with objective record

Fetting v. Kijakazi, 62 F.4th 332 (preservation requirement for challenging VE testimony)
Chavez v. Berryhill, 895 F.3d 962 (critique of equal-distribution method; ALJ’s duty to hold VE accountable for job estimates)
Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148 (definition and standard for substantial evidence)
Liskowitz v. Astrue, 559 F.3d 736 (forfeiture by failing to object to VE testimony at hearing)
Shaibi v. Berryhill, 883 F.3d 1102 (failure to challenge VE at administrative level forfeits appellate review)
Brown v. Colvin, 845 F.3d 247 (cannot raise new VE challenges for first time on appeal)
Brace v. Saul, 970 F.3d 818 (VE testimony must not be facially incoherent)
Karr v. Saul, 989 F.3d 508 (ALJ may discount a medical opinion inconsistent with other objective evidence)