Case Summary
**Case Summary: Michael Biestek v. Commissioner of Social Security, Docket Number 6165276**
**Court:** United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
**Argued:** [Date of Argument]
**Decided:** [Date of Decision]
**Background:**
Michael Biestek filed for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits, claiming he was unable to work due to various health conditions. His application was denied by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), who determined that Biestek was capable of performing certain jobs in the national economy despite his impairments.
**Legal Issues:**
The crux of the case centered on whether the ALJ's decision to deny Biestek’s application for benefits was supported by substantial evidence. Biestek contended that the ALJ failed to adequately consider the limitations imposed by his impairments and relied on vocational expert testimony that was not consistent with the evidence.
**Arguments:**
1. **For Biestek:** The appellant argued that the ALJ did not properly evaluate the medical evidence in the record, particularly regarding the severity of his conditions. Biestek maintained that the vocational expert's conclusions were flawed due to incorrect assumptions about his capabilities.
2. **For the Commissioner:** The Commissioner contended that the ALJ correctly applied the five-step sequential evaluation process and that the decision was supported by substantial evidence, including the opinions of medical professionals and vocational experts.
**Decision:**
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the case to determine whether the ALJ's findings were supported by substantial evidence and whether the correct legal standards were applied. The Court ultimately upheld the ALJ's decision, affirming that the ALJ had adequately addressed Biestek’s limitations while considering the expert testimony and the relevant evidence.
**Conclusion:**
The Court's ruling in Michael Biestek v. Commissioner of Social Security underscored the importance of the ALJ's role in evaluating both the medical evidence and vocational factors when determining eligibility for SSDI benefits. Consequently, the decision to deny Biestek's claim for disability benefits was affirmed based on the substantive evidence presented during the proceedings.
---
(Note: The exact dates of argument and decision have not been included as they were not provided in the original request. Please insert those details accordingly.)