Yoho v. Bisignano
- Nancy Brasel
- 0:24-cv-03788
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 14
In Yoho v. Bisignano (Case No. 24-cv-3788), Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster recommended denying the plaintiff's request to reverse or remand the Social Security Administration's denial of Supplemental Security Income benefits, finding that substantial evidence supported the administrative law judge's conclusion that the plaintiff is not disabled.
Individuals who have applied for Social Security Supplemental Security Income benefits and whose claims have been denied, particularly those with mental health conditions such as autism spectrum disorder, who seek judicial review of administrative decisions.
What happened
In Yoho v. Bisignano, a young man identified as Elija Y. applied for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) — a federal program providing financial assistance to people with disabilities — claiming he was disabled due to autism spectrum disorder, depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, panic disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and physical problems with his feet. After the Social Security Administration denied his application at every level, including before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) — the hearing officer who decides disability claims — Elija Y. sued in federal court asking a judge to reverse the denial or send the case back for a new review.
The ALJ had found that while Elija Y. has several severe impairments, he retains the ability to perform certain medium-exertion, unskilled jobs available in significant numbers in the national economy, such as cleaner, kitchen helper, and hand packager. The ALJ reached this conclusion after reviewing medical records, the opinions of two state agency psychological consultants (Drs. Dress and Conroe) and an examining psychologist (Dr. Karayusuf), as well as Elija Y.'s own testimony. The ALJ noted that Elija Y. had no mental health treatment or medication management during the relevant period, could travel internationally alone, maintained average cognitive functioning (IQ of 104), and interacted appropriately with medical staff — all of which the ALJ found inconsistent with a claim of total disability.
Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster, applying the limited 'substantial evidence' standard of review — meaning the court does not reweigh the evidence but only checks whether a reasonable person could accept the evidence as supporting the ALJ's conclusion — found the ALJ's decision well-supported. Judge Foster rejected Elija Y.'s argument that the ALJ ignored his school records showing he needed special education supports, finding the ALJ had in fact considered those records and noted that Elija Y. himself indicated those services 'may not be necessary.' Because the case is before a magistrate judge, this document is a Report and Recommendation, not a final order; the parties have 14 days to file written objections with the district court, and the case will be dismissed with prejudice if the recommendation is adopted.
The detailed version
- Yoho v. Bisignano, No. 24-cv-3788 (NEB/DJF) **Judicial Officer:** Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster (Report and Recommendation)
- August 8, 2025
Procedural Posture Plaintiff Elija Y. sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner of Social Security's final decision denying his application for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. The matter came before Magistrate Judge Foster for a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and District of Minnesota Local Rule 72.1. The magistrate judge recommended: (1) denying Plaintiff's request for relief; (2) granting Defendant Commissioner Frank Bisignano's request for relief; and (3) dismissing the matter with prejudice.
Background Elija Y. applied for SSI on January 6, 2022, at age 19, alleging disability onset of March 15, 2020. He alleged disability from autism, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), eating disorder, depression, insomnia, and bilateral foot and hand problems. He had prior work experience in a retail store produce department.
The Commissioner denied the application initially and on reconsideration. An ALJ held a hearing on January 19, 2024, at which Elija Y. and a vocational expert testified. Elija Y. was represented by counsel.
ALJ's Five-Step Sequential Analysis The ALJ applied the standard five-step disability evaluation (20 C.F.R. § 416.920):
- Step 1: Found Elija Y. had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged onset date. - Step 2: Found severe impairments including autism spectrum disorder, depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, panic disorder, OCD, ADHD, osteoarthritis, and pronation deformity of both feet. Found wrist pain not medically determinable; found cannabis and alcohol use disorder non-severe. - Step 3: Found the impairments did not meet or medically equal any Listing of Impairments, because Elija Y. had only moderate (not extreme or marked) limitations in the four broad areas of mental functioning: understanding/remembering/applying information; interacting with others; concentrating/persisting/maintaining pace; and adapting/managing oneself. - Step 4 (Residual Functional Capacity or RFC): Determined Elija Y. could perform medium work with significant restrictions: avoid unprotected heights and moving mechanical parts; frequent bilateral foot control operation and pushing/pulling; understand, remember, and carry out simple instructions; occasional interaction with supervisors and coworkers; no public interaction; no specific production-rate work (e.g., assembly line or hourly quotas); only occasional adaptation to changes in a routine work setting. The ALJ found Elija Y. could not perform his past relevant work as a stock clerk (DOT #299.367-014), which exceeded his RFC. - Step 5: Based on vocational expert testimony and considering Elija Y.'s age, education, work experience, and RFC, the ALJ found he could perform: cleaner II (DOT #919.687-014, ~53,010 national jobs); kitchen helper (DOT #318.687-010, ~120,293 national jobs); and hand packager (DOT #920.587-018, ~70,335 national jobs). The ALJ found the vocational expert's reliance on professional experience to fill gaps where the Dictionary of Occupational Titles did not address certain RFC limitations (e.g., foot control frequency) was reasonable.
Medical and Opinion Evidence The ALJ relied on: - State agency psychological consultants Demetri Dress, Psy.D., and Ray Conroe, Ph.D., L.P., both of whom found no more than moderate functional limitations in any domain — opinions the ALJ found persuasive. - Examining psychologist Dr. Alford Karayusuf (September 2022), who opined Elija Y. could understand and follow simple instructions, needed very brief and superficial interactions with coworkers, supervisors, and the public, and functioned best working alone. The ALJ found this opinion persuasive but imposed greater restrictions (no public contact) while allowing occasional supervisor and coworker interaction based on Elija Y.'s past work and school experiences. - The ALJ noted a complete absence of mental health treatment or medication management in the record during the relevant period. Elija Y. testified he stopped medication because he found it ineffective.
Plaintiff's Arguments and Court's Analysis Elija Y. raised two challenges: (1) the RFC did not adequately account for his inability to function independently; and (2) substantial evidence did not support the RFC.
Elija Y. argued the ALJ failed to account for his school history — including special education supports, an individualized education plan (IEP) allowing extra time, and daily professional assistance — and that his ability to graduate, perform daily chores, and travel internationally did not translate to workplace functioning. He argued the ALJ made incorrect assumptions by equating those abilities with capacity to manage workplace stressors independently.
Magistrate Judge Foster rejected these arguments:
- The ALJ did consider the school records, including a notation in those records that Elija Y. himself indicated special education services 'may not be necessary,' and that his strengths included 'independence.'
- The ALJ properly relied on persuasive medical opinions from Drs. Dress, Conroe, and Karayusuf under the updated regulations (20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c), which no longer give controlling or special weight to any single medical source.
- The ALJ appropriately discounted subjective complaints that were inconsistent with objective evidence (including international travel alone, average IQ, appropriate interactions with medical staff, intact cognition), consistent with 20 C.F.R. § 416.930(b) and 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5)(A).
- Courts reviewing Social Security decisions do not reweigh evidence; they ask only whether substantial evidence — more than a scintilla, what a reasonable mind might accept as adequate — supports the ALJ's decision. The court found it did.
Standard of Review Applied Substantial evidence review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g): the court affirms if the ALJ's decision falls within the 'zone of choice' supported by the record, even if the court might have reached a different result. Remand is warranted only if the ALJ's factual findings are insufficient to permit meaningful review.
Recommendation Magistrate Judge Foster recommended denial of Plaintiff's request for relief, granting of Defendant's request for relief, and dismissal with prejudice.
Next Steps This is a Report and Recommendation, not a final order. Under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), parties have 14 days after service to file written objections with the district court. The Report and Recommendation is not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 14-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.