Shari B. v. Bisignano
- Shannon Elkins
- 0:24-cv-03901
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 15
In Shari B. v. Frank Bisignano, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins denied Shari B.'s request to overturn the Social Security Administration's decision that she was not disabled and entitled to disability insurance benefits, finding that the agency's decision was supported by substantial evidence.
People who have been denied Social Security disability insurance benefits and are seeking federal court review of those denials, particularly claimants with musculoskeletal conditions whose cases involve disputes over residual functional capacity assessments, the weight given to treating physicians' opinions, and whether reported symptoms constitute medically determinable impairments.
What happened
In Shari B. v. Frank Bisignano, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Shari B. applied for Social Security disability insurance benefits, claiming she became disabled in July 2019 due to conditions including seronegative rheumatoid arthritis, a left knee disorder, and a lumbar spine disorder. After her initial claim was denied and a first administrative hearing also went against her, a federal district court sent the case back for a second hearing. A second administrative law judge again found her not disabled, concluding that although she could not return to her past work, jobs existed in significant numbers in the national economy that she could perform given her physical limitations.
Shari B. raised three main arguments in federal court. First, she argued the agency should have considered her reported cyclical vomiting when assessing what work she could do. Second, she argued the agency's finding that she could sit for six hours a day was not supported by the evidence, particularly the opinion of her treating rheumatologist, Dr. Schiebe, who said she could sit only one hour in an eight-hour period. Third, she challenged the agency's finding that, starting July 18, 2023, she could stand or walk for up to four hours a day — an increase from the prior two-hour limit — based on improvement in her foot condition after surgery.
Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins rejected all three arguments and upheld the agency's denial of benefits. On the vomiting issue, Judge Elkins found that the administrative law judge was not required to consider vomiting in assessing Shari B.'s work capacity because no objective medical evidence from an acceptable medical source established it as a medically determinable condition. On the sitting and standing issues, Judge Elkins found that the administrative law judge had properly weighed the medical evidence and testimony, and that the court's role is not to reweigh evidence or substitute its own judgment for that of the agency when the agency's decision is supported by substantial evidence.
The detailed version
This case involves judicial review of a Social Security Administration (SSA) decision denying disability insurance benefits (DIB) under Title II of the Social Security Act to Shari B., who alleged disability beginning July 25, 2019, primarily due to seronegative rheumatoid arthritis, a left knee disorder with osteoarthritis and degenerative meniscal tear, and a lumbar spine disorder.
Procedural History: Shari B. filed for DIB on December 16,
- Her claim was denied initially and on reconsideration. A first administrative law judge (ALJ) held a hearing and found her not disabled. On appeal, the federal district court remanded the case, and the Social Security Appeals Council directed a second ALJ to conduct a new hearing. That hearing occurred on April 30,
- On June 14, 2024, the second ALJ issued a decision again finding Shari B. not disabled. The Appeals Council declined to review, making the ALJ's second decision the final agency decision. Shari B. then filed this federal court action on October 14,
- Both parties consented to disposition by Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
ALJ's Five-Step Analysis: The ALJ applied the standard five-step sequential evaluation process under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. At step one, Shari B. had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged onset date. At step two, her severe impairments were seronegative rheumatoid arthritis, left knee disorder, and lumbar spine disorder; other conditions were deemed non-severe, and cyclical vomiting was found not to be a medically determinable impairment. At step three, no impairment or combination met or equaled a listed impairment. The ALJ then determined two residual functional capacities (RFCs) — the maximum work a claimant can still do despite limitations: (1) from July 25, 2019 to July 17, 2023, light work with standing/walking limited to two hours per eight-hour workday and sitting up to six hours; and (2) from July 18, 2023 onward, the same with standing/walking increased to four hours, tied to improvement in Shari B.'s foot condition after surgery. At step four, the ALJ found she could not return to her past work. At step five, relying on vocational expert testimony, the ALJ found jobs existed in significant numbers in the national economy that she could perform, so she was not disabled.
Standard of Review: Judge Elkins applied the deferential 'substantial evidence' standard — meaning the court asks only whether the ALJ's decision is supported by evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, which is less than a preponderance. The court may not substitute its own judgment for the ALJ's.
Issue 1 — Cyclical Vomiting: Shari B. argued the ALJ should have considered her subjective complaints of cyclical vomiting in the RFC. Judge Elkins held that under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1521, only conditions established by objective medical evidence from an acceptable medical source qualify as medically determinable impairments; a claimant's own symptom reports or diagnoses are insufficient. The ALJ found no such objective evidence for cyclical vomiting. Shari B. pointed to an endoscopy (which the court noted occurred in January 2024, not July 2024 as Shari B. stated) showing 'the possibility of mild inflammatory bowel disease,' her own testimony, and three pages of the record mentioning vomiting. Judge Elkins found these insufficient: testimony alone cannot establish a medically determinable impairment, and the endoscopy at most suggested a possibility — it did not establish cyclical vomiting as a medically determinable condition. Accordingly, the ALJ was not required to include vomiting-related limitations in the RFC.
Issue 2 — Sitting Limitation: Shari B. argued the six-hour sitting limitation was unsupported by substantial evidence, pointing to Dr. Schiebe's (her treating rheumatologist's) opinion that she could sit only one hour in an eight-hour period. The ALJ found Dr. Schiebe's opinion unpersuasive because of the very limited opportunity for examination and inconsistencies with objective medical evidence and Dr. Schiebe's own treatment notes. Judge Elkins noted that Shari B. did not argue the ALJ erred in analyzing Dr. Schiebe's opinion or that it should have received more weight — instead, she essentially asked the court to reweigh the evidence. Under the applicable standard, the court may not do so. The court's role is limited to reviewing whether the ALJ adequately analyzed persuasiveness, citing Cropper v. Dudek, 136 F.4th 809, 814 (8th Cir. 2025).
Issue 3 — Change in RFC on July 18, 2023: Shari B. challenged the increase in her standing/walking capacity from two to four hours beginning July 18, 2023, arguing the ALJ relied solely on her post-surgical foot improvement and that her testimony contradicted any improvement. The ALJ found that her rheumatoid arthritis, lumbar spine disorder, and left knee disorder had not significantly changed after July 18, 2023, but that her foot condition had improved following surgery — she reported doing well, wearing normal footwear, helping at a daycare, and having no residual pain. Since the foot condition had previously contributed to the two-hour stand/walk limit, its improvement justified extending that limit to four hours. Judge Elkins found that the medical records Shari B. cited did not show significant changes in her lumbar spine or SI joint, and that her argument again amounted to asking the court to reweigh evidence, which it cannot do.
Disposition: Ms. B's request for relief was DENIED. The Commissioner's request for relief was GRANTED. Judgment was entered accordingly.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 15-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.