Page:Michael J. Biestek v. Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of Social Security.pdf/2

2 adequate to support a conclusion.” Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U. S. 197, 229. Biestek proposes a categorical rule that the testimony of a vocational expert who refuses a request for supporting data about job availability can never clear that bar. To assess that proposal, the Court begins with the parties’ common ground: Assuming no demand, a vocational expert’s testimony may count as substantial evidence even when unaccompanied by supporting data.

, delivered the opinion of the Court, in which, and , , and , joined. , filed a dissenting opinion. , filed a dissenting opinion, in which, joined.