NOSSCR and its members have written amicus briefs and argued cases before the U.S. Supreme Court in such cases as:

      • Biestek v. Berryhill, which will answer the question of whether a vocational expert's (VE's) testimony can constitute substantial evidence of "other work" at step five of sequential evaluation process when the VE fails to provide the underlying data on which that testimony is premised upon the applicant's request.  
      • Culbertson v. Berryhill, which will be heard in the Supreme Court’s October 2018 term, will resolve discrepancies among the circuit courts on how attorney fees are calculated when lawyers successfully represent claimants seeking Social Security disability benefits at both the administrative and court levels.
      • Lucia v. SEC, holding that administrative law judges (ALJs) appointed within the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) must be done in a way that aligns with the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
      • Astrue v. Capato, 132 S.Ct. 2021 (2012), holding that a posthumously conceived child who can inherit under the laws of intestacy of the relevant state can receive Social Security survivor’s benefits.
      • Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S.___, 130 S.Ct. 2521 (2010), involving the issue of whether the EAJA fee belongs to the plaintiff or the attorney.
      • Richlin Security Service Co. v. Chertoff, 553 U.S. 571 (2008), holding that EAJA fees for paralegal services should be paid at “prevailing market rates” rather than considered an “other expense.”
      • Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 US 789 (2002) involving the calculation of attorneys’ fees for representation in federal court.
      • Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.S. 103 (2000) holding that an issue not raised at the Appeals Council level is not waived in federal court.
print Print Page share Share bookmark Bookmark