James P. v. Bisignano
- Shannon Elkins
- 0:25-cv-01078
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 15
In James P. v. Frank Bisignano, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins granted the plaintiff's request for relief and remanded the case to the Social Security Administration because the Administrative Law Judge failed to properly resolve a conflict between vocational expert testimony and the official job dictionary, and because the Appeals Council failed to clearly consider a vocational rebuttal report that the plaintiff submitted.
People who have been denied Social Security disability insurance benefits and whose cases involved vocational expert testimony that may conflict with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, or who submitted additional evidence to the Social Security Appeals Council that may not have been addressed in the denial notice.
What happened
In James P. v. Frank Bisignano, Acting Commissioner of Social Security (Case No. 25-cv-1078), James P. applied for Social Security disability insurance benefits, claiming disability beginning January 1, 2022, due to osteoarthritis of the right knee and obesity. After his claim was denied at the administrative level, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) held a hearing where a vocational expert testified that James P. could perform work as a school bus driver and identified three other jobs he could do. The ALJ found James P. was not disabled based on that testimony. James P. then appealed to the Appeals Council, submitting a rebuttal vocational report from Karen Starr, which argued that none of the jobs identified by the vocational expert were actually compatible with James P.'s work limitations. The Appeals Council denied review without clearly addressing the Starr Report.
The case presented two key problems with the ALJ's decision. First, the ALJ's own written decision acknowledged that the school bus driver job — as defined in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT), the official federal job reference guide — requires 'constant' reaching and handling, while the ALJ had limited James P. to only 'frequent' reaching and handling. Social Security rules require an ALJ to ask a vocational expert about any such conflict on the record and get a reasonable explanation before relying on the expert's testimony. The ALJ instead only asked the vocational expert at the end of the hearing whether her testimony was generally consistent with the DOT — a question the court found insufficient to satisfy the rules. Second, James P. submitted the Starr Report to the Appeals Council, which directly challenged all three alternative jobs the ALJ identified at the final step of the disability analysis. The court found the Starr Report was new, relevant evidence that presented a real possibility of changing the outcome, meaning the Appeals Council was required to address it. However, the Starr Report did not appear in the administrative record and the Appeals Council's denial notice did not reference it, leaving it unclear whether the Appeals Council actually reviewed it.
Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins granted James P.'s request for relief, denied the Commissioner's request for relief, and remanded (sent back) the case to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings. On remand, the ALJ is directed to reconsider whether James P. can perform his past work in compliance with the applicable Social Security rules, and to consider the Starr Report.
The detailed version
- James P. v. Frank Bisignano, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, No. 25-cv-1078 (SGE)
- United States Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins
- February 26, 2026
Background and Procedural History
James P. applied for Social Security disability insurance benefits (DIB) under Title II of the Social Security Act on February 15, 2022, alleging disability onset of January 1, 2022, due to osteoarthritis of the right knee and obesity. His claim was denied initially and on reconsideration. Following a video hearing before an ALJ on January 9, 2024, the ALJ found James P. not disabled on February 12, 2024. The ALJ applied the standard five-step sequential evaluation process under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520.
At step four, the ALJ found James P. could return to past relevant work as a school bus driver based on vocational expert (VE) Diamond Warren's testimony. At step five, the ALJ made an alternative finding that James P. could perform three jobs existing in significant numbers nationally: hospital cleaner (55,000 jobs), order picker (10,000 jobs), and counter supply worker (35,000 jobs).
James P. appealed to the Appeals Council (AC), submitting a vocational rebuttal report dated March 4, 2024, by Karen Starr (the Starr Report), which argued that all three step-five jobs and the school bus driver job were incompatible with his RFC limitations. The AC denied review on January 24, 2025, without clearly addressing the Starr Report. The Starr Report did not appear in the administrative record. James P. then filed suit in federal district court.
Issue One — Step Four: Failure to Resolve VE/DOT Conflict Under SSR 00-4p
The ALJ's residual functional capacity (RFC) — the assessment of the most a claimant can do despite limitations — restricted James P. to 'frequent' reaching, handling, fingering, and feeling bilaterally. The Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT), the primary reference for job requirements, specifies that a school bus driver (DOT 913.463-010) requires 'constant' reaching and handling — a higher level than 'frequent.'
Social Security Ruling 00-4p (SSR 00-4p) — the agency policy applicable at the time of the ALJ's decision (it was rescinded effective January 6, 2025, and replaced by SSR 24-3p) — requires an ALJ to (1) inquire on the record about any apparent conflict between VE testimony and the DOT, (2) obtain a reasonable explanation for the conflict, and (3) explain in the written decision how the conflict was resolved before relying on VE testimony.
The court found that the ALJ violated SSR 00-4p in two ways. First, although the ALJ's written decision acknowledged the conflict, the ALJ never actually questioned VE Warren about it on the record during the hearing; instead, the ALJ only asked at the very end of the hearing whether her testimony was generally consistent with the DOT — a generic question the court found insufficient. Second, the court noted that the ALJ's decision inaccurately stated that the VE testified her answers were consistent with her 'education and experience in vocational rehabilitation,' when no such testimony appears in the hearing transcript. Because the ALJ failed to obtain and document a reasonable explanation for the conflict, the court held the ALJ could not rely on the VE's testimony, and the DOT definition — requiring 'constant' reaching and handling — became the default. Since the DOT's requirement exceeds James P.'s RFC, the step four finding that he could perform the school bus driver job was legally deficient.
Issue Two — Appeals Council's Failure to Address the Starr Report
Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.970(a)(5), the AC must review a case when it receives additional evidence that is: (1) new, (2) material, (3) relates to the period on or before the ALJ hearing decision date, and (4) presents a reasonable probability of changing the outcome.
The court found the Starr Report satisfied all four criteria: it was written after the hearing, was not cumulative of existing evidence, was relevant to James P.'s condition during the benefits period, and directly contradicted the VE testimony on which the ALJ solely relied at step five — creating a reasonable probability of a different outcome. Therefore, the AC was required to review the report.
However, the AC's denial notice referenced only that it considered the 'reasons' submitted with James P.'s request for review and exhibited only the three-page request for review, not the three-page Starr Report. The Starr Report was also absent from the administrative record. The court found it could not determine whether the AC actually reviewed the Starr Report. Under Eighth Circuit precedent (Lamp v. Astrue; Gartman v. Apfel), remand is appropriate where it is unclear whether the AC considered new material evidence.
Because the court could not confirm AC review of the Starr Report, it declined to apply the 'substantial evidence' standard that would otherwise govern review of the Commissioner's final decision.
Ruling:
- Plaintiff James P.'s request for relief (Dkt. 8) — GRANTED.
- Defendant Commissioner's request for relief (Dkt. 14) — DENIED.
- Case REMANDED to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings.
On remand, the ALJ is directed to: (1) reassess James P.'s ability to perform past relevant work at step four in compliance with SSR 00-4p, and (2) reconsider the prior decision in light of the Starr Report.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 15-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.