Expert Witness Blog
In the recent case of Thorpe v. Bisignano, No. 24-2214 (7th Cir. 2025), the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit addressed the critical role of the Disability Expert Witness—specifically, a vocational expert—in Social Security disability proceedings. The court’s analysis provides a clear example of how expert testimony is evaluated for reliability and the procedural requirements for challenging such testimony.
Background and Parties
Donald Thorpe, the claimant, sought Social Security disability benefits, alleging that his medical conditions rendered him unable to engage in substantial gainful activity. The Social Security Administration denied his claim, and the matter proceeded to a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). At the hearing, a vocational expert provided testimony regarding Thorpe’s ability to perform work available in the national economy, considering his limitations.
Role and Methods of the Disability Expert Witness
The vocational expert, serving as the Disability Expert Witness, was tasked with evaluating Thorpe’s residual functional capacity and identifying jobs that Thorpe could perform despite his impairments. The expert’s methodology involved:
– Reviewing Thorpe’s medical records and functional limitations as determined by the ALJ.
– Consulting the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) to identify jobs consistent with Thorpe’s abilities.
– Applying professional experience and knowledge of the labor market to assess job availability and requirements.
The expert testified that, based on Thorpe’s limitations, there were jobs in the national economy that he could perform. This testimony was consistent with the DOT and supported by the expert’s qualifications and experience.
Court’s Reliability and Daubert Analysis
Thorpe did not object to the vocational expert’s testimony during the hearing or in a post-hearing brief. On appeal, he attempted to challenge the reliability of the expert’s opinions. The district court, and subsequently the Seventh Circuit, held that Thorpe had forfeited any challenge to the expert’s testimony by failing to raise an objection at the appropriate time.
The Seventh Circuit conducted a reliability analysis akin to the standards articulated in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., focusing on whether the expert’s testimony had “sufficient indicia of reliability.” The court found:
– The vocational expert’s testimony was consistent with the DOT, a widely accepted and authoritative source in disability adjudications.
– The expert’s qualifications and experience further supported the reliability of the testimony.
– There was no evidence of methodological flaws or inconsistency with established vocational standards.
The court emphasized that the ALJ is entitled to rely on expert testimony that is grounded in recognized sources and professional expertise, absent a timely and specific objection.
Impact of the Expert Testimony on the Outcome
The vocational expert’s testimony was pivotal in the ALJ’s determination that Thorpe was not disabled under the Social Security Act. The ALJ relied on the expert’s identification of alternative jobs that Thorpe could perform, which constituted substantial evidence supporting the denial of benefits.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that the ALJ’s reliance on the vocational expert’s testimony was proper and that Thorpe’s failure to object precluded appellate review of the expert’s qualifications or methodology. The court’s decision underscores the importance of timely objections to expert testimony and the deference afforded to ALJs in weighing expert evidence in disability proceedings.
This case illustrates the central role of the Disability Expert Witness in Social Security disability litigation and the standards courts apply to assess the reliability and admissibility of expert testimony in administrative proceedings. The outcome demonstrates that expert testimony, when properly grounded in authoritative sources and professional expertise, can be decisive in the adjudication of disability claims, provided procedural requirements are met by the parties.