In the recent appellate decision of Hohman v. Kijakazi, No. 22-2831 (7th Cir. 2023), the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit addressed the pivotal role of the Employment Expert Witness in Social Security disability proceedings. This case provides a clear illustration of how courts evaluate the reliability and admissibility of expert testimony in employment-related matters, particularly when the expert’s methodology is challenged.
Background and Parties
The plaintiff, Hohman, a 53-year-old former medical records clerk and patient access representative, applied for Social Security disability benefits, alleging that her fibromyalgia, PTSD, depression, and anxiety rendered her unable to work. The defendant, Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, opposed the claim, contending that Hohman retained the capacity to perform other work available in the national economy.
Role and Methods of the Employment Expert Witness
Central to the case was the testimony of a vocational expert, a specialized type of Employment Expert Witness frequently retained in disability and employment litigation to assess a claimant’s ability to perform work given specific limitations. The vocational expert in Hohman’s case opined that, despite her impairments, Hohman could perform the jobs of photocopy machine operator, small products assembler, or mail clerk.
To reach these conclusions, the expert relied on a “weighted estimate” methodology. This approach incorporated the expert’s 25 years of professional experience, extensive placement and labor market survey work, and data from 2,000 labor market surveys. The expert explained that many job titles in the Department of Labor’s database had been merged or eliminated due to technological advances, necessitating a nuanced, experience-based adjustment rather than a mechanical application of outdated job titles. The expert explicitly rejected the “equal distribution method,” which assigns equal weight to all job titles, as inconsistent with current labor market realities.
Judicial Analysis of Reliability and Daubert Standards
The reliability of the vocational expert’s methodology was a focal point of Hohman’s appeal. She argued that the expert’s approach was insufficiently rigorous and that reliance on the equal distribution method, in particular, was flawed. The Seventh Circuit acknowledged the ongoing debate regarding the reliability of various job-number estimation methods, including the equal distribution method. However, the court held that it is not per se reversible error for an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) to rely on such methods, provided the expert’s testimony is grounded in substantial evidence.
The court emphasized that the expert’s use of professional experience, corroborated by thousands of labor market surveys, satisfied the threshold for reliability under the applicable evidentiary standards. The court noted that the expert’s methodology was transparent and subject to cross-examination, and that the ALJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence in the record.
Impact of the Expert Testimony on the Outcome
The vocational expert’s testimony was dispositive. The ALJ relied heavily on the expert’s analysis to conclude that Hohman could perform work existing in significant numbers in the national economy, thereby denying her claim for disability benefits. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that the expert’s testimony provided a sufficient evidentiary basis for the ALJ’s findings and that any methodological concerns did not rise to the level of reversible error.
Conclusion
Hohman v. Kijakazi underscores the critical importance of the Employment Expert Witness in employment and disability litigation. The case demonstrates that courts will scrutinize the reliability of expert methodologies but will defer to the ALJ’s weighing of expert evidence when supported by substantial evidence and grounded in professional experience. The decision provides valuable guidance for litigants and experts alike regarding the standards governing expert witness testimony in employment-related cases.