Eutenauer v. Bisignano
- Shannon Elkins
- 0:24-cv-01725
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 18
In Eutenauer v. Bisignano, Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins upheld the Social Security Administration's denial of Jean E.'s request for expedited reinstatement of disability benefits, finding that the administrative law judge's conclusion that her hearing had medically improved was supported by sufficient evidence in the record.
Individuals who previously received Social Security disability benefits, had those benefits terminated due to returning to work, and are seeking reinstatement of benefits through the expedited reinstatement process — particularly those whose disability was based on hearing loss or other physical impairments and who later experienced medical improvement.
What happened
In Eutenauer v. Bisignano (Case No. 24-cv-1725), Jean E., a woman who had received Social Security disability benefits since 2006 based on profound hearing loss, sought to have her benefits reinstated after the agency ended them in 2020 because she had returned to work. Rather than filing a new disability application, she used a special process called 'expedited reinstatement,' which allows a former beneficiary to ask that prior benefits be restarted. An administrative law judge denied her request in April 2023, concluding that her hearing had meaningfully improved — specifically, that she had gone from being unable to understand conversational speech to scoring above average on hearing tests after receiving cochlear implants — and that she was capable of performing certain light-duty jobs available in significant numbers nationwide.
Jean E. raised three main challenges before the federal court. First, she argued the administrative law judge overlooked a possible mental health listing that a prior consultant had supposedly identified; the court found that the consultant's records actually showed her mental health limitations did not reach the level required by any such listing. Second, she argued the agency miscalculated her earnings when it determined she had been working at a level that disqualified her from reinstatement; the court found her earnings calculation was incorrect and that, in any event, the administrative law judge had continued through all the required steps regardless of that finding, making any error harmless. Third, she argued the judge failed to account for the fact that her Walmart job was part-time and included employer accommodations; the court found the judge had considered this evidence but weighed it differently, and that it was not the court's role to reweigh evidence.
Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins denied Jean E.'s request for relief and granted the Commissioner's request to affirm the administrative decision. The judge also struck Jean E.'s motion for summary judgment, noting that the rules governing Social Security appeals no longer allow such motions — parties must instead present their arguments through written briefs. Judgment was ordered to be entered in favor of the Commissioner, Frank Bisignano.
The detailed version
This Social Security appeal was decided by United States Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins in the District of Minnesota on September 24, 2025. Both parties consented to final disposition by the magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
Background and Procedural History Plaintiff Jean E. was found disabled in 2006 due to profound hearing loss meeting Listing 2.11B (a presumptively disabling impairment under Social Security regulations). Her disability was confirmed in a 2015 continuing disability review. In November 2020, the agency terminated her benefits, finding she had engaged in 'substantial gainful activity' — meaning work at a level that disqualified her from receiving disability — beginning in October 2018. Jean E. did not appeal that termination decision.
On December 27, 2020, Jean E. filed a request for 'expedited reinstatement' of benefits under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1592b, a process allowing former beneficiaries to seek restoration of prior entitlement rather than filing a new application. The request was denied at the initial and reconsideration levels. After a hearing before Administrative Law Judge Keith Kearney — at which a vocational expert testified — and a psychiatric evaluation ordered by the ALJ, the ALJ issued a decision on April 3, 2023, denying reinstatement. The Appeals Council denied review on March 15, 2024, making the ALJ's decision final. Jean E. then filed this federal court action on May 11, 2024.
Legal Standard Expedited reinstatement requests are evaluated under the 'medical improvement review' standard, which requires an eight-step sequential analysis comparing the claimant's current condition to their condition at the time of the most recent favorable determination — here, the March 4, 2015 'comparison point decision.' Judicial review is limited to whether the ALJ's decision is supported by 'substantial evidence,' defined as less than a preponderance but enough that a reasonable mind would find it adequate to support the conclusion. The court may not substitute its own factual findings for those of the ALJ.
The ALJ's Eight-Step Analysis - Step 1: Jean E. engaged in substantial gainful activity in December 2020 (monthly average earnings of $1,361.66 exceeded the 2020 threshold of $1,260), but not thereafter during the adjudicated period (December 1, 2020 through April 3, 2023). The ALJ continued the analysis. - Step 2: Her impairments did not meet or equal any presumptively disabling listing. - Step 3: Medical improvement had occurred — hearing test results from July 2020 showed she could understand conversational speech, unlike at the 2015 comparison point. - Step 4: The improvement was related to her ability to work (because she no longer met Listing 2.11B, the regulations deem improvement work-related). - Step 6: She had severe impairments since December 1, 2020. - RFC Determination: She could perform light work with restrictions including no telephone use, avoidance of concentrated noise and hazards, and no jobs requiring hearing for safety. - Step 7: No past relevant work. - Step 8: Jobs existed in significant numbers she could perform — housekeeping cleaner (193,000 positions), merchandise marker (191,000 positions), and cleaner and polisher (43,000 positions), per vocational expert testimony.
Plaintiff's Three Arguments and the Court's Rulings
1. Mental health listing: Jean E. argued the ALJ failed to consider whether her mental health impairments met an unspecified listing, based on a 2015 'Medical Consultant Review (Mental)' form by state agency consultant Ray Conroe, Ph.D. The court rejected this, finding the record showed that Conroe's accompanying 'Psychiatric Review Technique' form explicitly stated Jean E.'s mental health limitations were below the threshold required to meet or equal any listing. The ALJ therefore did not err.
2. Substantial gainful activity calculation: Jean E. argued her December 2020 earnings of $500.74 and $594.56 (two paychecks) totaled less than the 2020 monthly threshold of $1,260. The court rejected this on two grounds. First, substantial gainful activity is calculated using a monthly average over the quarter, not isolated paycheck figures. Jean E.'s total fourth-quarter 2020 earnings of $4,085.00 divided by three months yields $1,361.66/month, exceeding the threshold. Second, even if the ALJ erred, the error was harmless because the ALJ continued through all eight steps regardless — the only possible prejudice would have been if the ALJ had stopped the analysis at step one, which he did not. Jean E. also attempted to challenge the earlier November 2020 benefits termination decision; the court held that challenge was barred because she never appealed that decision.
3. Part-time work with accommodations: Jean E. argued the ALJ should have found her more limited because her Walmart job was performed part-time with employer accommodations. The court rejected this because: (a) the ALJ had found Jean E.'s subjective statements about her limitations to be not entirely consistent with the medical record — a credibility finding Jean E. did not challenge; (b) the ALJ had actually considered all the evidence Jean E. cited; and (c) Jean E. was essentially asking the court to reweigh evidence, which falls outside the court's limited review authority. The court also noted that Eighth Circuit precedent permits part-time work to be considered in substantial gainful activity assessments.
Procedural Note on Summary Judgment The court struck Jean E.'s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 16) as filed in error, explaining that the Federal Supplemental Rules of Civil Procedure governing Social Security appeals require parties to present arguments through briefs, not summary judgment motions.
Disposition - Jean E.'s motion for summary judgment: STRICKEN - Jean E.'s request for relief: DENIED - Commissioner's request to affirm and dismiss: GRANTED - Judgment ordered entered for the Commissioner.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 18-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.