Adriana de la Torre, NOSSCR Sustaining Member

In Boonthong v. Commissioner of Social Security (9th Cir. July 22, 2025), the Ninth Circuit delivered a reminder to all disability claimants and their attorneys: when it comes to post-hearing evidence on job numbers, methodology matters far more than the numbers themselves.

Boonthong had appealed the denial of her Social Security Disability Insurance and SSI claims, arguing that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) erred at Step 5 of the sequential evaluation process. Her main challenge was aimed at the vocational expert’s (VE) testimony about how many jobs she could perform in the national economy. This was especially relevant because in this case, after the hearing, Boonthong’s attorney submitted alternate job-number estimates generated using Job Browser Pro software—estimates that were significantly lower than the VE’s figures.

Unfortunately, the Ninth Circuit rejected the challenge. The Court found that Boonthong’s attorney did not show that the alternate estimates were produced using the same methodology as the VE. The court stressed that for post-hearing evidence to be “probative,” it must come from a data source and method the Social Security Administration regularly relies on—and it must disclose the specific filters, variables, and steps taken to arrive at the results.

The opinion made clear that without detailed replication of the VE’s approach, alternate data, even from sophisticated tools like Job Browser Pro, carries little weight. The ALJ had no duty to reconcile the discrepancy, and the denial of benefits was affirmed.

In practical terms, this ruling creates a Catch-22: courts now demand precise replication of a VE’s methodology, yet VEs often testify without providing enough detail to make such replication possible.

For practitioners, the takeaway is clear: you cannot effectively challenge a VE’s job numbers after the fact unless you’ve already nailed down their methodology during the hearing itself. That means cross-examining on data sources, software versions, filters applied, occupational code mappings, and every other step in the process. Without that record, your post-hearing evidence risks being dismissed as speculative.

Boonthong reinforces a hard truth about Step 5 litigation: transparent, replicable methodology is your strongest weapon. Without it, even the most compelling numbers may never see the inside of a remand order.

Got any questions? Schedule a consultation with us. I’m here to help. It’s a lot to take in, but we’ll get through it together. After all, navigating these waters is always easier when you’ve got someone to chat with.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the views of NOSSCR, its leadership, or staff.