United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 22-1970 MICHAEL A. LEISGANG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee. ____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. No. 3:21-cv-40 — Barbara B. Crabb, Judge. ____________________

ARGUED APRIL 11, 2023 — DECIDED JUNE 26, 2023 ____________________

Before SCUDDER, ST. EVE, and LEE, Circuit Judges. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge. Michael Leisgang applied for So- cial Security benefits based on a number of conditions that he alleged left him disabled and unable to work. An administra- tive law judge denied his claim following an evidentiary hear- ing where a vocational expert testified that, despite his limi- tations, Leisgang could perform certain widely available jobs. Leisgang now claims that the ALJ should have done more to ensure the soundness of the vocational expert’s methodology. 2 No. 22-1970 But he forfeited the issue by failing to object at the hearing. And because substantial evidence otherwise supports the ALJ’s determination, we affirm. I Michael Leisgang suffers from depression, anxiety, and a personality disorder, among other conditions. He believes these impairments prevent him from working. So he sought supplemental security income as well as disability insurance benefits in 2019. The ALJ held an evidentiary hearing and applied the fa- miliar five-step test to determine whether Leisgang was disa- bled. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4); see also Fetting v. Kijakazi, 62 F.4th 332, 336–37 (7th Cir. 2023) (describing the five steps). The primary focus on appeal concerns the ALJ’s analysis at the fifth and final step. The ALJ had concluded that Leisgang could perform the full range of work subject to several limita- tions. He could undertake only simple, routine, and repetitive work; he could not work at a rapid, production-rate pace; he could tolerate few changes in routine work settings; and he could interact only occasionally with supervisors, coworkers, and the public. Those limitations precluded Leisgang from performing his past work. So, at the fifth and final step of the analysis, the ALJ considered whether Leisgang could perform other jobs available in significant numbers in the national economy. To answer the question, the ALJ sought assistance from a vocational expert. The VE testified that someone with Leis- gang’s limitations could work as a kitchen helper, sweeper/cleaner, or hospital cleaner. The VE estimated that there were meaningful numbers of each job across the No. 22-1970 3 country. By his approximation, there were 309,000 kitchen helper jobs, 1,300,000 sweeper/cleaner jobs, and 453,000 hos- pital cleaner jobs nationwide. If these job titles seem unusual and outdated, that is because they are. The VE identified job titles using a dictionary published by the Department of La- bor in 1977 and not revised since 1991. The Social Security Ad- ministration began working on a new resource in 2008, and the judiciary continues to await its release—indeed, eagerly so. See Chavez v. Berryhill, 895 F.3d 962, 965–66 (7th Cir. 2018) (emphasizing that the Social Security Administration is long overdue to develop a modernized, reliable, and data-driven system for estimating job numbers). On cross-examination, Leisgang’s attorney asked the VE how he came up with his job-number estimates. The VE said the primary data came from the Occupational Employment Quarterly, which applies the equal distribution method to