Buczak v. Bisignano
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:24-cv-02634
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 6
In Buczak v. Bisignano, Judge Tostrud dismissed with prejudice the Social Security disability benefits appeal brought by Krystof B., accepting Magistrate Judge Elkins's recommendation that the administrative law judge properly relied on a vocational expert's testimony as sufficient evidence to find Krystof B. not disabled.
Individuals who have been denied Social Security disability benefits by an administrative law judge and are seeking federal court review, particularly those whose hearings involved multiple vocational experts or incomplete cross-examination opportunities.
What happened
In Buczak v. Bisignano (File No. 24-cv-2634), Krystof B. sued the Commissioner of Social Security, Frank Bisignano, asking a federal court to overturn an administrative decision denying him disability benefits. The core dispute involved the final step of the Social Security disability evaluation process, where the government must show that a person who cannot do their past work can still perform other jobs that exist in significant numbers across the country. Two vocational experts — Kenneth Ogren and his son Jesse Ogren — were involved in the administrative hearing process, but the administrative law judge (ALJ) ultimately relied only on Jesse Ogren's testimony after a phone connection failure prevented full cross-examination of Kenneth Ogren.
Krystof B. argued that the ALJ treated him unfairly by refusing to let him cross-examine Kenneth Ogren about whether certain jobs the ALJ credited — 'garment bagger' and 'hand packager' — were truly 'light' work (allowing some standing and walking) or 'sedentary' work (mostly sitting). He contended that if Kenneth Ogren had agreed those jobs were sedentary, the government would have failed to meet its legal burden at the final step of the disability evaluation. Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins issued a Report and Recommendation concluding that Jesse Ogren's testimony alone provided enough evidence to support the ALJ's decision, and that Krystof B.'s argument about Kenneth Ogren amounted to speculation about what that expert might have said.
Judge Tostrud accepted Magistrate Judge Elkins's Report and Recommendation in full, overruled Krystof B.'s objections, denied his request for relief, granted the Commissioner's request for relief, and dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning Krystof B. cannot refile this same claim in federal court.
The detailed version
This is a Social Security disability benefits appeal under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), decided by United States District Judge Eric C. Tostrud of the District of Minnesota on August 15, 2025, in Buczak v. Bisignano, File No. 24-cv-2634.
Background and Administrative Proceedings
Plaintiff Krystof B. sought judicial review of an administrative law judge's (ALJ) denial of Social Security disability benefits. The Social Security Administration uses a five-step sequential evaluation process to determine disability. At the final step — step five — if a claimant has proven he cannot perform past relevant work, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show the claimant can perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy. The Commissioner may use vocational experts to satisfy that burden. 20 C.F.R. § 416.966(e).
During the administrative hearings, two vocational experts testified: Kenneth Ogren and his son Jesse Ogren. Kenneth Ogren testified by telephone, but the connection failed, preventing full cross-examination. The ALJ asked Kenneth Ogren to complete written interrogatories (a set of written questions), which he did. The ALJ then held a second hearing with Jesse Ogren testifying. Krystof B. requested a supplemental hearing specifically to cross-examine Kenneth Ogren, not Jesse Ogren. The ALJ denied this request and expressly stated she would not base any part of her decision on Kenneth Ogren's testimony, interrogatory responses, or other submissions. Her final decision relied solely on Jesse Ogren's testimony, finding Krystof B. could perform 'light work' — specifically as a 'garment bagger' and 'hand packager' — and that such jobs existed in significant numbers nationally.
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins issued a Report and Recommendation concluding that the testimonies of Kenneth and Jesse Ogren did not conflict, and that even if they had, it was irrelevant because the ALJ expressly disregarded Kenneth Ogren's testimony. Judge Elkins recommended affirming the ALJ's decision as supported by substantial evidence and free of legal error.
Objections and the Court's Analysis
Krystof B. objected, arguing the ALJ failed her duty to develop the administrative record by refusing to allow cross-examination of Kenneth Ogren on the critical question of whether the identified jobs were 'light' or 'sedentary.' He argued that if Kenneth Ogren had classified those jobs as sedentary, the Commissioner would have failed to meet her step five burden. The Commissioner did not respond to the objections.
Judge Tostrud reviewed the matter de novo (independently, without deference to the magistrate judge's legal conclusions) as required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72.2(b)(3). Under Eighth Circuit precedent, an ALJ's decision is affirmed if she made no legal error and the decision is supported by substantial evidence — meaning 'such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind would find adequate to support the Commissioner's conclusion,' which is a lower bar than a preponderance of evidence. Blackburn v. Colvin, 761 F.3d 853, 858 (8th Cir. 2014). An ALJ fails her duty to develop the record only where the failure is 'unfair or prejudicial.' Shannon v. Chater, 54 F.3d 484, 488 (8th Cir. 1995).
Judge Tostrud overruled Krystof B.'s objections, reasoning that Jesse Ogren's testimony alone constituted substantial evidence on which the ALJ could make an informed decision. The court found that Krystof B.'s argument was speculative — he had not shown Kenneth Ogren would actually have classified the jobs differently, only that he might have. Even if Kenneth Ogren had contradicted Jesse Ogren, the ALJ would still have had expert testimony constituting substantial evidence in support of her conclusion. Denial of the supplemental hearing request alone did not establish prejudice or unfair treatment.
Ruling
Judge Tostrud: (1) overruled Krystof B.'s objections; (2) accepted the Report and Recommendation in full; (3) denied Krystof B.'s request for relief; (4) granted the Commissioner's request for relief; and (5) dismissed the action with prejudice, barring refiling of the same claim.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.