Jervis v. Bisignano
- Shannon Elkins
- 0:24-cv-02793
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 14
In Jervis v. Bisignano, Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins ruled that the Social Security Administration's denial of disability benefits to Tracy D.G. J. was not supported by adequate evidence and must be sent back for further review, primarily because the administrative law judge changed a key work-limitation finding after hearing testimony that the original limitation would have required a finding of disability, without explaining why.
People who have applied for Social Security Disability Insurance or Supplemental Security Income and had their claims denied by an administrative law judge, particularly those whose cases involve off-task work limitations due to medical conditions or potential eligibility under Listing 5.08 (severe weight loss from a digestive disorder).
What happened
In Jervis v. Bisignano (Case No. 24-cv-2793), Tracy D.G. J. challenged the Social Security Administration's denial of her applications for Social Security Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income. An administrative law judge (ALJ) had found that despite multiple serious physical and mental impairments — including cardiac arrest, migraines, chronic pain, major depressive disorder, and anxiety — Ms. J retained enough ability to perform certain light-duty jobs available in the national economy, and was therefore not disabled.
The court identified two significant problems with the ALJ's decision. First, at the administrative hearing, the ALJ asked a vocational expert (a specialist who testifies about job availability) whether jobs existed for someone who would be unable to focus on work at least 20% of the workday. The expert testified that no jobs would be available at that level. The ALJ then, without explanation, reduced that limitation to 15% in her written decision — a threshold at which jobs were available — effectively changing the outcome without providing any reasoning tied to the medical evidence. Second, the ALJ never analyzed whether Ms. J's condition met "Listing 5.08," a Social Security regulation that can automatically qualify someone as disabled if they have documented severe weight loss from a digestive disorder, even though the medical record contained multiple documented instances of Ms. J having a body mass index below the required threshold.
Magistrate Judge Elkins granted Ms. J's request for relief, denied the Commissioner's request to uphold the decision, and remanded — sent the case back — to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings consistent with the court's order. The judge also struck Ms. J's separately filed motion for summary judgment, explaining that the rules governing Social Security appeals no longer permit that type of motion.
The detailed version
- Jervis v. Bisignano, Case No. 24-cv-2793 (SGE), United States District Court, District of Minnesota
- Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins
- September 30, 2025
Procedural Background Plaintiff Tracy D.G. J. applied for Social Security Disability Insurance (Title II) on December 2, 2021, and Supplemental Security Income (Title XVI) on December 8,
- Both applications were denied initially and on reconsideration. ALJ Mary D. Morrow held a video hearing on March 2, 2023, and issued a non-disability finding on March 22,
- The Appeals Council declined review. Ms. J filed this federal court action on July 19,
- The parties consented to disposition by a United States Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636.
ALJ's Five-Step Sequential Analysis At step one, the ALJ found Ms. J had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since her alleged onset date. At step two, the ALJ found the following severe impairments: protein S deficiency, cardiac arrest, small patent foramen ovale (PFO) and status-post PFO closure, migraines, leiomyoma, chronic pain syndrome, major depressive disorder, anxiety, social anxiety disorder, panic disorder, symptoms of an eating disorder, and alcohol use disorder in remission. At step three, the ALJ found no impairment met or medically equaled a listed impairment.
At step four, the ALJ determined Ms. J's Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) — the most she can do despite her limitations — allowed for light work with numerous restrictions, including: never climbing ladders/ropes/scaffolds; no strobe or flashing lights; no exposure to moving machinery or unprotected heights; simple, routine, repetitive tasks not at a production-rate pace; only occasional interaction with supervisors, co-workers, and the public; few changes in work setting; and being off task 15% of the workday due to visual disturbances. The ALJ found Ms. J could not perform her past relevant work.
At step five, relying on vocational expert (VE) Frank Samlaska's testimony, the ALJ found Ms. J could perform three jobs — housekeeper, order caller, and collator operator — totaling approximately 221,439 jobs nationally, and was therefore not disabled.
Issue 1: The 15% vs. 20% Off-Task Limitation At the administrative hearing, the ALJ had posed a hypothetical to the VE using a 20% off-task limitation. The VE testified that no jobs would exist for someone off task at least 20% of the workday, and that the off-task tolerance for the identified jobs was "right up to that 20 percent." In her written decision, however, the ALJ adopted a 15% off-task limitation — without providing any explanation for the reduction from the 20% figure used in the hearing hypothetical.
The court applied the "logical bridge" standard, under which an ALJ must build a reasoned connection between the evidence and the RFC conclusion to allow for meaningful judicial review. The court noted that SSR 96-8p requires narrative discussion linking evidence to each RFC conclusion. The court rejected the Commissioner's argument that the 15% limitation was immaterial because any limitation under 20% would not preclude employment, finding that this reasoning conflated the employability question with the medical-evidence question of whether 15% — rather than 20% — was the correct limitation for Ms. J specifically. The court found that the ALJ's post-hearing reduction of the off-task limitation, made without explanation and in a manner that converted a disability-precluding finding into a non-disabling one, was not neutral record development and was not supported by substantial evidence. Remand was warranted on this ground.
The court declined to address Ms. J's separate argument that the Appeals Council erred in rejecting late-submitted evidence, as the remand rendered that issue moot.
Issue 2: Failure to Evaluate Listing 5.08 Ms. J argued that the ALJ committed legal error by failing to evaluate Listing 5.08, which provides for a finding of disability based on weight loss due to any digestive disorder — despite continuing treatment as prescribed — with a body mass index (BMI) below 17.50, documented on at least two evaluations at least 60 days apart within a consecutive 12-month period.
The court found the ALJ's step-three analysis made no reference to Listing 5.08. The record contained evidence of treatment for chronic diarrhea and bowel lesions, and multiple documented BMI readings below 17.50. The court cited Chunn v. Barnhart, 397 F.3d 667 (8th Cir. 2005), for the proposition that remand is appropriate when an ALJ's decision fails to reference an applicable listing and is thus insufficient for meaningful appellate review. The court rejected the Commissioner's argument that Ms. J had not demonstrated she satisfied every element of the listing, noting that it was the ALJ's duty to evaluate the listing in the first instance. Because it was unclear whether the ALJ even considered Listing 5.08, remand was independently required on this ground as well.
Disposition
- Ms. J's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 17) was STRICKEN as filed in error, because Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Supplemental Rule SS Rule 5 no longer permits summary judgment motions in Social Security review actions.
- Ms. J's request for relief (Dkt. 18) was GRANTED.
- The Commissioner's request to affirm (Dkt. 20) was DENIED.
- The case was REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with the order.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 14-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.