Urbaniak v.Bisignano
- Shannon Elkins
- 0:24-cv-02699
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 20
In Urbaniak v. Bisignano, Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins ruled that the Social Security Administration's Administrative Law Judge failed to give adequate reasons for rejecting Sharon U.'s testimony about her need for lengthy rest breaks, and remanded the case for further review rather than an immediate award of disability benefits.
Individuals who have applied for Social Security disability insurance benefits and had their subjective symptom testimony discounted by an ALJ without adequate explanation; claimants whose cases may be affected by the new five-year look-back rule for past relevant work (effective June 22, 2024); practitioners handling Social Security appeals who need to understand that post-hoc rationalizations by government counsel cannot substitute for the ALJ's own stated reasoning.
What happened
In Urbaniak v. Bisignano (Case No. 24-cv-2699), Sharon U. appealed the Social Security Administration's denial of her application for disability insurance benefits, which she originally filed in October 2019, claiming disability due to breast cancer, lymphedema in her left arm, and neuropathy (damage to peripheral nerves causing pain, numbness, or weakness). The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found she could still perform her past work as a customer service associate, office assistant, or receptionist, and therefore was not disabled. Sharon U. challenged that finding, arguing in particular that the ALJ wrongly dismissed her testimony that she could only work two hours at a time and then needed a three-hour break — including at least one hour with her legs elevated — before she could work again.
The court focused on whether the ALJ properly handled Sharon U.'s subjective statements about her symptoms. The ALJ acknowledged that her impairments could cause her reported symptoms but then dismissed her testimony in a single conclusory paragraph, saying only that her statements were 'not generally consistent with the objective medical evidence.' The court found this was legally insufficient: an ALJ who discounts a claimant's reported symptoms must explain the specific reasons, tied to relevant factors, in enough detail for a reviewing court to assess whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence (meaning enough evidence that a reasonable person could agree with the conclusion). The court also rejected the government's after-the-fact arguments defending the ALJ's decision, noting that a reviewing court can only consider the reasons the ALJ actually gave, not new justifications invented by lawyers on appeal.
Magistrate Judge Elkins remanded the case to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings, granting Sharon U.'s request for remand but denying her request for an immediate award of benefits. The court explained that an immediate award is only appropriate when the evidence of disability is overwhelming or uncontested, and here conflicting evidence remained. The court also noted that on remand, a recently changed Social Security rule limiting consideration of 'past relevant work' to five years (rather than fifteen) may apply, potentially changing the outcome — but left that determination to the agency. Both parties' motions for summary judgment were stricken because updated federal rules no longer allow such motions in Social Security appeals.
The detailed version
- Urbaniak v. Bisignano, No. 24-cv-2699 (SGE)
- Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins (both parties consented to disposition by the magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c))
- September 8, 2025
Background and Procedural History Plaintiff Sharon U. filed a Title II application for disability insurance benefits on October 16, 2019, with an alleged onset date ultimately amended to May 1, 2019. Her claim was denied initially and on reconsideration in 2020. After a May 2021 hearing, ALJ Nicholas Grey denied benefits on June 30, 2021, concluding she was not disabled under the Social Security Act. The Appeals Council denied review, and Sharon U. filed a federal action in 2022 (Sharon U. v. Kijakazi, 22-cv-1768). That case was remanded by stipulation under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). On remand, the Appeals Council vacated the ALJ's decision and sent the case back to ALJ Grey. After a second hearing on February 6, 2024, the ALJ again denied benefits on March 14, 2024, finding Sharon U. could perform her past relevant work. Sharon U. filed the present action on July 12, 2024.
Procedural Note on Summary Judgment Motions Both parties filed motions for summary judgment (Dkts. 13, 16). The court struck both motions as procedurally improper under the Federal Supplemental Rules of Civil Procedure (specifically Supplemental Rule SS Rule 5), which now require Social Security appeals to be resolved on the parties' briefs rather than summary judgment motions.
ALJ's Five-Step Analysis - Step 1: Sharon U. did not engage in substantial gainful activity during the adjudicated period (May 1, 2019 through the decision date), except from the second quarter of 2022 through September 30, 2023. The court noted the ALJ's decision contained apparent scrivener's errors stating the period was April 1, 2020 through September 30, 2023. - Step 2: Severe impairments: breast cancer and left-arm lymphedema. Sharon U. challenged the failure to include neuropathy as a severe impairment. - Step 3: No listing-level impairment. Not challenged. - Step 4: Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) — the most the claimant can do despite her limitations — was assessed as light work with limitations on climbing, left-arm handling and fingering (frequent), and left-arm overhead reaching (occasional). Based on this RFC and vocational expert testimony, the ALJ found Sharon U. could perform past relevant work as customer service associate, office assistant, and receptionist. - Step 5: Not reached because the Step 4 finding was sufficient to deny benefits.
Issue 1: Evaluation of Subjective Symptom Statements Sharon U. testified she could only work two hours, then required a three-hour break (including at least one hour of leg elevation to address neuropathy-related leg and foot swelling) before working another two hours. The ALJ acknowledged her impairments could cause her reported symptoms but discounted her statements in a single conclusory paragraph, citing only general inconsistency with 'objective medical evidence and other evidence.'
The court held this was legally insufficient. Under Social Security Ruling 16-3p and Eighth Circuit precedent (including Renstrom v. Astrue, 680 F.3d 1057 (8th Cir. 2012)), an ALJ who discounts a claimant's subjective statements must provide specific reasons, address relevant factors (daily activities; location, duration, frequency, and intensity of symptoms; precipitating and aggravating factors; medications and their effects; non-medicinal treatment; and other functional limitations), and articulate the analysis clearly enough for meaningful judicial review. The ALJ did none of this.
The court also rejected the Commissioner's post-hoc rationalizations — that no doctor recommended extended breaks or leg elevation, and that Sharon U. never told her doctors about these needs — as improper arguments not found in the ALJ's actual decision. Under SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80 (1943), a court reviews the agency's stated rationale, not new reasons offered by appellate counsel.
Harmless Error Analysis The error was not harmless. The independent vocational expert (IVE) Beverly Solyntjes testified at the February 2024 hearing that needing to elevate legs for one hour per day would preclude both light and sedentary work, and that needing a three-hour break after two hours of work would exceed customary competitive employment tolerances. If Sharon U.'s testimony were credited and the limitations were found to stem from medically determinable impairments, the IVE's testimony would support a finding of total disability. The ALJ's conclusory discussion also precluded meaningful judicial review — independently warranting remand.
Issue 2: Step 2 Neuropathy Argument The court declined to address Sharon U.'s argument that the ALJ erred by failing to find neuropathy a severe impairment at step two, finding it unnecessary given the remand already required on the subjective symptoms issue, and noting that reconsideration on remand would alter the surrounding circumstances.
Type of Remand The court declined to remand for an immediate award of benefits. Under Faucher v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 17 F.3d 171 (6th Cir. 1994), and Papesh v. Colvin, 786 F.3d 1126 (8th Cir. 2015), an immediate award is warranted only when proof of disability is overwhelming or strong with little contrary evidence. Here, the court found conflicting evidence and that the evidence, while 'strongly suggesting' entitlement, was not overwhelming.
The court also noted a potentially significant development: SSA amended its rules on evaluating 'past relevant work' to limit review to the prior five years (rather than fifteen), effective June 22, 2024, under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1560(b)(1)(i) and SSR 24-2P. This new rule appears to apply to applications remanded after June 22, 2024. If applied, Sharon U. would likely have no qualifying past relevant work, and Grid Rule 202.00 (which directs a disability finding based on age, education, and work history for certain claimants limited to light work) would apparently mandate a finding of disability — even if the ALJ again found her capable of light work. The court noted this outcome appears likely but left the determination to the Commissioner in the first instance, citing Papesh, 786 F.3d at 1136.
The court acknowledged Sharon U.'s frustration that her case had been pending over five and a half years, but found no legal authority supporting an immediate award based on delay alone.
Disposition
- Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 13): STRICKEN as filed in error.
- Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 16): STRICKEN as filed in error.
- Plaintiff's request for relief (Dkt. 14): GRANTED IN PART (remand for further proceedings) and DENIED IN PART (no immediate award of benefits).
- Defendant's request for relief (Dkt. 17): DENIED.
- Case REMANDED to the Social Security Administration pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings consistent with the order.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 20-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.