Wright v. Bisignano
- John Docherty
- 0:24-cv-01596
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 17
In Wright v. Bisignano, Judge Docherty upheld the Social Security Administration's denial of supplemental security income to plaintiff Ashley D. W., finding that the administrative law judge properly evaluated the medical opinions, that the plaintiff's 2024 multiple sclerosis diagnosis was not relevant to the time period under review, and that the plaintiff's methamphetamine use was a factor that would eliminate her disability if stopped.
People who have applied for Social Security Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits and been denied, particularly those whose claims involve mental health impairments, substance abuse history, or new medical diagnoses arising after the relevant period of an ALJ decision. Also relevant to anyone seeking judicial review of a Social Security denial in the Eighth Circuit.
What happened
In Wright v. Bisignano (Case No. 24-CV-1596), Ashley D. W. asked a federal court to reverse the Social Security Administration's denial of her application for Supplemental Security Income (SSI), a program that provides financial support to people with limited income who are disabled. She filed her application in March 2020, claiming she was disabled due to bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). An administrative law judge (ALJ)—a government official who decides disability claims—denied her application in August 2022, and she then sought review in federal court.
Ashley D. W. raised three arguments. First, she said the ALJ wrongly dismissed the opinions of her therapist, Steven F. Taylor, M.A., and her nurse practitioner, Larry Elj, APRN, both of whom described serious limitations in her ability to work. Second, she argued that a 2024 diagnosis of Primary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis (PPMS), a disease affecting the nervous system, showed she was disabled. Third, she contended the ALJ was wrong to find she would not be disabled if she stopped using methamphetamines. The Commissioner of Social Security defended the ALJ's decision and asked the court to affirm it.
Judge Docherty rejected all three arguments and affirmed the Commissioner's decision. On the medical opinions, the court found the ALJ properly explained why the opinions of Mr. Taylor and Mr. Elj were only minimally persuasive—their conclusions were not well supported by their own treatment notes and were inconsistent with other evidence showing Ashley D. W. functioned better when she was not using substances. On the PPMS diagnosis, the court found that evidence from 2024 falls outside the time period the ALJ was allowed to consider (March 2020 through August 2022), and that medical records from within that period actually showed normal muscle strength and no documented shakiness attributable to PPMS. On the substance use issue, the court found the ALJ correctly followed the required legal process: the ALJ first determined Ashley D. W. was disabled when her methamphetamine use was included, then properly determined she would not be disabled if she stopped using methamphetamines, which meant she was not entitled to benefits. The court noted that Ashley D. W. may wish to file a new SSI application based on her PPMS diagnosis.
The detailed version
- Wright v. Bisignano, Case No. 24-CV-1596 (JFD)
- Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty
- September 15, 2025
- Commissioner's decision affirmed; plaintiff's requested relief denied
Background and Procedural History Plaintiff Ashley D. W. applied for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) under Title XVI of the Social Security Act on March 20, 2020, alleging disability onset of December 31, 2015, due to bipolar disorder, PTSD, and ADHD. SSI provides benefits to financially needy individuals who are disabled, regardless of work history. The relevant period under review ran from March 20, 2020 (application date) through August 3, 2022 (date of the ALJ's decision).
After denial at the initial and reconsideration levels, Plaintiff received an administrative hearing on July 27, 2022. The ALJ issued a written decision on August 3, 2022, finding Plaintiff not disabled. The ALJ applied the standard five-step sequential evaluation process under 20 C.F.R. § 416.920. The Appeals Council denied review, making the ALJ's decision the final agency decision subject to judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
ALJ's Five-Step Findings - Step 1: No substantial gainful activity since the alleged onset date. - Step 2: Severe impairments included panic disorder, PTSD, bipolar disorder, ADHD, and substance abuse disorder. - Step 3: When substance abuse was included, Plaintiff's impairments met Listing § 12.06 (anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorders) because she had marked limitations in all four "paragraph B" areas of mental functioning: understanding/remembering/applying information; interacting with others; concentrating/persisting/maintaining pace; and adapting/managing oneself. Thus, with substance abuse included, Plaintiff was disabled. - Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) Assessment (between Steps 3 and 4): The ALJ determined that if Plaintiff stopped substance use, she could perform a full range of work at all physical exertion levels but with significant non-exertional (mental and environmental) limitations, including restrictions on noise, hazards, travel, complexity of tasks, pace, decision-making, public interaction, and co-worker interaction. - Step 4: Plaintiff could not perform her past work as a telemarketer. - Step 5: If Plaintiff stopped substance use, she could perform jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy, including Laundry Worker I, Electronics Worker, and Addresser. - Substance Abuse Materiality: Because Plaintiff would not be disabled absent her substance use, the ALJ found substance abuse to be a contributing factor material to the disability determination under 20 C.F.R. § 416.935, resulting in denial of benefits.
Issue 1: Medical Opinion Evidence (Mr. Taylor and Mr. Elj) Under 20 C.F.R. § 416.920c, an ALJ must evaluate medical opinions using five factors, with supportability (how well the opinion is supported by the source's own objective evidence and explanations) and consistency (how consistent the opinion is with other evidence in the record) being the most important. The ALJ must articulate consideration of both.
The ALJ found both Mr. Taylor's and Mr. Elj's opinions only minimally persuasive.
- Mr. Taylor (therapist): The ALJ found his opinions of marked limitations unsupported by his own treatment notes, which repeatedly described Plaintiff as cooperative, coherent, with intact memory, judgment, and insight when not using substances. The ALJ also noted that Mr. Taylor used fill-in-the-blank and checkbox forms with supporting text drawn from Plaintiff's self-reports rather than Mr. Taylor's own clinical observations, and that Mr. Taylor did not account for substance abuse as a variable. The ALJ found Taylor's opinions inconsistent with Plaintiff's reported daily activities (preparing meals, shopping, childcare, using public transportation) and mental status findings from other providers.
- Mr. Elj (nurse practitioner, APRN): The ALJ found his opinions unsupported by his own treatment notes documenting cooperative behavior, appropriate affect, and intact thought processes. The ALJ further found his opinions inconsistent with records from periods of sobriety and noted that Mr. Elj did not account for Plaintiff's methamphetamine relapse and medication noncompliance in May 2022, which the ALJ found material to functional limitations. The ALJ also properly considered the brevity of the treatment relationship (March through at least July 2022) as a permissible factor under 20 C.F.R. § 416.920c(c)(3)(i).
The court found the ALJ adequately addressed both supportability and consistency for each opinion, and that substantial evidence supported those findings.
Issue 2: 2024 PPMS Diagnosis Plaintiff submitted evidence that, in April 2024 and after evaluations in May and June 2024, providers concluded she had Primary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis (PPMS). She argued this warranted reversal, pointing to statements that she had experienced hand shakiness about four years before diagnosis and general shakiness and weakness about three years before diagnosis.
The court applied the rule that, on judicial review, courts generally cannot consider evidence outside the administrative record. A court may remand for consideration of new evidence only if it is "material" — meaning non-cumulative, relevant, and probative of the claimant's condition during the period for which benefits were denied. The relevant period ended August 3, 2022; the diagnosis came in April 2024.
The court found the PPMS evidence not probative of Plaintiff's condition during the relevant period because: (1) the diagnosis postdated the period by nearly two years; (2) Plaintiff identified no medical records within the relevant period documenting shakiness or weakness attributable to PPMS; (3) to the contrary, a provider recorded normal muscle strength and tone in October 2021, Plaintiff denied shakiness in June 2022, and a June 2022 doctor's review showed no weakness. The court noted, without deciding, that Plaintiff might pursue a new SSI application based on the PPMS diagnosis.
Issue 3: Substance Abuse Evaluation Plaintiff argued the ALJ's substance abuse analysis was flawed because people with mental impairments sometimes use substances to self-medicate, meaning the mental impairment may be the underlying cause.
Under 20 C.F.R. § 416.935 and Brueggemann v. Barnhart, 348 F.3d 689 (8th Cir. 2003), the ALJ must first determine disability without regard to substance abuse. If disabled, the ALJ then asks whether the claimant would still be disabled absent substance use. If not, substance abuse is a "contributing factor material" to the determination, and benefits must be denied. The burden is on the claimant to show she would still be disabled without substances.
The court found the ALJ correctly followed this framework: the ALJ first found Plaintiff disabled (with substance use included), then assessed her functioning absent substance use and found only moderate — not disabling — limitations in the four paragraph B areas, supported by objective medical evidence and Plaintiff's own reports to providers. The court found substantial evidence supported the conclusion that Plaintiff would not be disabled absent substance use, and that the ALJ committed no legal error in the analysis.
Standard of Review Judicial review is limited to whether the Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial evidence — meaning less than a preponderance but enough that a reasonable mind would find it adequate — or whether it resulted from legal error. The court may not reverse simply because substantial evidence could support a different result.
Disposition The court denied all relief requested by Plaintiff, granted the Commissioner's request to affirm, and ordered judgment accordingly.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 17-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.