Richard H. v. Bisignano
- Elizabeth Wright
- 0:25-cv-01385
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Richard H. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Nancy E. Brasel dismissed with prejudice Richard H.'s challenge to the denial of his disability insurance benefits, finding that the Administrative Law Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence even though it omitted the word 'superficial' when describing his allowed interactions with supervisors and coworkers.
Individuals who have been denied Social Security disability insurance benefits and are challenging an ALJ's decision in federal court, particularly those arguing that an ALJ's written findings do not precisely mirror the language used in medical opinions the ALJ found persuasive.
What happened
In Richard H. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security (Case No. 25-CV-1385), Richard H. sought federal court review of a Social Security Administration Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ's) decision denying him disability insurance benefits. Richard's main argument was that the ALJ's written decision was inconsistent with the medical opinions the ALJ had found persuasive: those opinions said he should have only 'limited, superficial, and infrequent contact with supervisors,' but the ALJ's decision said only that he could 'tolerate occasional interaction with supervisors and coworkers' — leaving out the word 'superficial,' which Richard argued restricted the quality of those interactions, not just how often they occurred.
Magistrate Judge Elsa M. Bullard had previously issued a Report and Recommendation concluding that the ALJ's findings were consistent with both the medical opinions and the broader record, relying on Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals decisions that have rejected similar arguments as improperly nitpicking an ALJ's well-reasoned decisions. When Richard objected to that recommendation, he did not engage with those court decisions and simply repeated his argument without citing any supporting legal authority.
Judge Nancy E. Brasel overruled Richard's objection, accepted Magistrate Judge Bullard's Report and Recommendation, and dismissed the complaint with prejudice — meaning Richard cannot refile this same claim in federal court. The court noted that an ALJ is not required to copy the exact language of medical opinions word-for-word, and that the Eighth Circuit has specifically rejected attempts to manufacture an inconsistency between an ALJ's finding of 'occasional' interaction and a doctor's opinion of 'superficial' interaction.
The detailed version
- Richard H. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security, No. 25-CV-1385 (NEB/EMB)
- Nancy E. Brasel, United States District Judge (adopting the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Elsa M. Bullard)
- March 3, 2026
Background
Richard H. applied for Social Security disability insurance benefits and was denied by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) — an official within the Social Security Administration who holds hearings and decides benefit claims. He then sought judicial review in federal district court, as claimants are entitled to do under the Social Security Act.
The ALJ's Decision
The ALJ found that Richard retained a residual functional capacity (the most a claimant can still do despite impairments) that included being able to 'tolerate occasional interaction with supervisors and coworkers, but is not able to perform tandem or coordinated tasks with coworkers.' The ALJ found persuasive the opinions of doctors who stated Richard could have 'only limited, superficial, and infrequent contact with supervisors.'
Richard's Argument
Richard contended that the ALJ's failure to include the word 'superficial' — which he argued restricts the quality or depth of interactions, not merely their frequency — rendered the ALJ's decision legally inconsistent with the medical opinions the ALJ had endorsed. He argued this omission was grounds for reversal.
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
Magistrate Judge Bullard recommended dismissal, concluding the ALJ's findings were consistent with the medical opinions and record evidence. She cited Eighth Circuit precedent holding that courts should not nitpick ALJ decisions to manufacture inconsistencies between an ALJ's use of 'occasional' interaction and a doctor's use of 'superficial' interaction. See Lane v. O'Malley, No. 23-1432, 2024 WL 302395 (8th Cir. Jan. 26, 2024); McKinney v. O'Malley, No. 23-3220, 2024 WL 1327965 (8th Cir. Mar. 28, 2024).
Richard's Objection
Richard objected to the Report and Recommendation but did not address or distinguish the Eighth Circuit caselaw cited by Magistrate Judge Bullard. He simply reiterated his argument that the omission of 'superficial' was error.
District Court's Analysis
Judge Brasel reviewed the Report and Recommendation de novo (from scratch, without deference to the Magistrate Judge) because Richard objected, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3). The court's role in Social Security appeals is narrow: it reviews for legal error and asks whether the ALJ's factual findings are supported by substantial evidence — meaning enough evidence that a reasonable mind could find adequate support for the ALJ's conclusion. Lawson v. Colvin, 807 F.3d 962, 964 (8th Cir. 2015). If the record supports two inconsistent conclusions and the ALJ chose one of them, the court must affirm. Wright v. Colvin, 789 F.3d 847, 852 (8th Cir. 2015).
The court noted that an ALJ 'is not required to adopt the exact limitations set forth in the opinions she found persuasive.' Wyatt v. Kijakazi, No. 23-1559, 2023 WL 6629761 (8th Cir. Oct. 12, 2023). Most directly on point, the Eighth Circuit in Lane v. O'Malley explicitly declined to find inconsistency between an ALJ's finding of 'occasional' interaction and a medical opinion of 'superficial' interaction, calling such challenges an attempt to 'manufacture inconsistency.' Richard offered no legal authority to distinguish or counter this binding precedent.
Ruling
Judge Brasel (1) overruled Richard's objection, (2) accepted the Report and Recommendation, (3) denied the requested relief, and (4) dismissed the complaint with prejudice — barring Richard from refiling this claim in federal district court. Judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.