Todd Moats v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
42 F.4th 558
6th Cir.2022Background
- Todd Moats suffers from peripheral neuropathy that prevents him from wearing closed‑toed shoes and forced him to leave his forklift operator job.
- Moats applied for disability insurance benefits and SSI; the SSA denied his claims and an ALJ hearing was held.
- Moats appeared at the hearing pro se after being advised of his right to representation; he supplemented the record with treating records and testified he could perform a seated job if not required to wear shoes.
- A vocational expert (VE) testified that about 32,000 sedentary jobs nationwide (e.g., general office clerk, addresser, surveillance monitor) would be compatible with Moats’s restrictions.
- The ALJ found Moats could not return to his past relevant work but had the residual functional capacity for many other jobs and denied benefits; the district court affirmed and the Sixth Circuit affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of VE testimony to establish "significant" jobs in national economy | Moats: VE testimony unreliable because underlying survey data wasn’t produced and no numeric threshold for "significant" was specified | SSA: VE was well‑credentialed, testimony consistent with DOT, and Biestek permits reliance on VE testimony even without underlying survey data | VE testimony constituted substantial evidence; ~32,000 jobs was "significant" and supported denial of benefits |
| Duty to develop the record for an unrepresented claimant | Moats: ALJ should have taken extra steps (including questioning VE about underlying data) because Moats was pro se and thus entitled to a heightened duty under Lashley | SSA: Lashley’s "special duty" is narrow/rare; ALJ informed Moats of right to counsel, invited questions, and the record was otherwise adequate | No heightened duty here; ALJ fulfilled obligation to develop a full and fair record; Lashley is limited to extreme cases |
Key Cases Cited
- Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148 (2019) (VE testimony from a qualified expert can be substantial evidence without disclosure of underlying survey data)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (1971) (ALJ acts as examiner charged with developing the facts, not as counsel)
- Lashley v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 708 F.2d 1048 (6th Cir. 1983) (articulated a "special duty" to develop the record for certain unrepresented claimants; treated here as narrow/limited)
- Taskila v. Commissioner of Soc. Sec., 819 F.3d 902 (6th Cir. 2016) (court precedent on what constitutes a "significant" number of jobs)
- Hall v. Bowen, 837 F.2d 272 (6th Cir. 1988) (ALJ must evaluate "significant" on a case‑by‑case basis)
- Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.S. 103 (2000) (Social Security proceedings are inquisitorial rather than adversarial)
- Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass'n, 575 U.S. 92 (2015) (courts may not impose procedural requirements on agencies beyond statutory mandates)
- Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519 (1978) (limits on judicially imposed procedural requirements for agencies)