Elizabeth M. v. Bisignano
- Dulce Foster
- 0:25-cv-02550
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 17
In Elizabeth M. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Foster upheld the Social Security Administration's denial of disability insurance benefits to Plaintiff Elizabeth M., finding that even though the administrative law judge wrongly relied on one of three job categories (appointment clerk), the remaining two jobs (sorter and document preparer) together represented 55,000 positions in the national economy, which is a sufficient number to support the conclusion that she is not disabled.
Individuals who have been denied Social Security disability insurance benefits and are challenging an administrative law judge's reliance on vocational expert testimony at step five of the disability evaluation process, particularly where there may be conflicts between that testimony and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles regarding job requirements or skill levels.
What happened
In Elizabeth M. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security, Plaintiff Elizabeth M. sought federal court review of a Social Security Administration decision denying her application for disability insurance benefits. She had applied for benefits in January 2023, claiming disability since January 5, 2022, due to conditions including fibromyalgia, obesity, thoracic degenerative disc disease, bipolar disorder, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. An administrative law judge (ALJ) — the hearing officer who decides disability claims — found she was not disabled because, despite being unable to do her past work, she could still perform three types of jobs that exist in significant numbers nationally: document preparer, appointment clerk, and sorter. Plaintiff challenged that conclusion in federal court, arguing the ALJ improperly relied on testimony from a vocational expert (a specialist who testifies about available jobs) that conflicted with the official job reference guide known as the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT).
The court examined each of the three job categories separately. For the document preparer position, the court found the ALJ properly handled the conflict between the DOT's outdated description (which references microfilm technology) and the vocational expert's testimony that the job is now performed using scanners, accepting the expert's explanation as reasonable. For the sorter position, the court found that the vocational expert adequately resolved the conflict between the DOT's classification of the job as semi-skilled and her testimony that it can actually be learned in under 30 days — effectively making it unskilled — based on her professional experience. For the appointment clerk position, however, the court agreed with Plaintiff that there was an unresolved conflict: the DOT describes the job as requiring frequent talking and hearing (up to two-thirds of the workday), while Plaintiff's assessed limitations restrict her to only occasional interaction with others (up to one-third of the workday). The court rejected the government's argument that a theoretical overlap at exactly one-third of the time resolved this conflict.
Despite finding the appointment clerk determination erroneous, Judge Foster affirmed the ALJ's overall conclusion that Plaintiff is not disabled. The court reasoned that the remaining two valid job categories — sorter (40,000 national jobs) and document preparer (15,000 national jobs) — together represent 55,000 jobs in the national economy, a number that exceeds the threshold courts in this district have generally treated as significant. Because a significant number of jobs exist that Plaintiff can perform, the court denied Plaintiff's request to reverse and send the case back to the agency, granted the Commissioner's request to affirm, and dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning it cannot be refiled.
The detailed version
In Elizabeth M. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security, No. 25-cv-2550 (DJF) (D. Minn. Mar. 11, 2026), United States Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster affirmed in part the Social Security Administration's final decision denying Plaintiff Elizabeth M. disability insurance benefits (DIB) under 42 U.S.C. § 423, and dismissed the action with prejudice.
Background and Administrative History Plaintiff, who was 37 years old at the time of her application, filed for DIB on January 3, 2023, alleging disability onset of January 5, 2022, due to chronic pain syndrome, possible multiple sclerosis (later ruled out), bipolar disorder, and depression. After initial denial and denial on reconsideration, an ALJ held a hearing on March 12, 2024, at which vocational expert (VE) Pamela Nelligan testified. The ALJ issued a decision on May 14, 2024, finding Plaintiff not disabled at step five of the five-step sequential evaluation process established under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). The ALJ determined Plaintiff had an RFC (residual functional capacity — the most work a person can do despite limitations) for sedentary work with numerous physical and mental limitations, including only occasional interaction with supervisors, coworkers, and the public, and a requirement for a four-point cane. The ALJ identified three representative occupations Plaintiff could perform: sorter (40,000 jobs nationally), document preparer (15,000 jobs), and appointment clerk (140,000 jobs). The Appeals Council denied review, and Plaintiff filed suit in federal court on June 18, 2025.
Standard of Review The court's review was limited to determining whether the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence — more than a scintilla, meaning such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate. Under Social Security Ruling (SSR) 00-4p (applicable here because it was rescinded only after the ALJ's May 2024 decision), ALJs were required to identify and resolve apparent conflicts between VE testimony and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) before relying on VE testimony, and to explain those resolutions.
Document Preparer Plaintiff argued the document preparer position (DOT# 249.587-018) is obsolete, citing SSA Guidance EM-24027 REV (Jan. 6, 2025), which imposes heightened evidentiary requirements before ALJs may rely on this occupation. The VE testified that while the DOT references microfiche technology, the job is now performed using scanners, based on her professional experience and job placement work. The ALJ cited this testimony and found the explanation reasonable. The court rejected Plaintiff's arguments that the VE had confused the document preparer role with the microfilm camera operator position, noting that the DOT itself describes document preparers as operating photocopying machines — a function analogous to scanning. The court also rejected Plaintiff's challenge to the VE's job count estimate of 15,000, finding Plaintiff offered no counterevidence to show the number was inaccurate and that the VE had relied on multiple sources, not solely Job Browser Pro. The court affirmed the ALJ's findings on this occupation.
Appointment Clerk Plaintiff argued that the appointment clerk position (DOT# 237.367-010) requires frequent talking and hearing (defined as occurring one-third to two-thirds of the workday under SSR 83-10), which conflicts with her RFC limiting her to occasional interaction with others (defined as occurring up to one-third of the workday). The Commissioner argued there was a potential overlap at precisely one-third of the time. The court rejected this argument, finding it unpersuasive that potential overlap at the very lowest end of the frequency range would support a conclusion that 140,000 such jobs exist that Plaintiff can perform, given her limitations arising from anxiety, mood symptoms, and panic attacks. The court found an unresolved apparent conflict between VE testimony and the DOT and held the ALJ erred in relying on VE testimony regarding this occupation.
Sorter Plaintiff argued the sorter position (DOT# 209.687-022) is classified as semi-skilled (SVP level 3), conflicting with her limitations since the ALJ found transferability of skills from her past work was not material. The VE testified, however, that the sorter job can be learned in under 30 days based on her experience placing people in jobs — effectively reclassifying it as unskilled (SVP 1-2) for purposes of Plaintiff's case. The court found this explanation adequate under SSR 00-4p and SSR 82-41, which expressly encourage reliance on vocational expert expertise to resolve questions about actual training time. The court also rejected Plaintiff's argument that the VE's statement that she was 'not aware of' conflicts with Job Browser Pro was an admission of internal contradiction, finding counsel's question was itself confusing and the VE's non-committal answer could not bear that weight. The court affirmed the ALJ's findings on this occupation.
Sufficiency of Remaining Jobs After disqualifying the appointment clerk position, the court assessed whether the remaining 55,000 jobs (40,000 sorter + 15,000 document preparer) constitute a 'significant number' of jobs in the national economy at step five. Noting there is no bright-line rule but surveying prior district court decisions, the court found that 55,000 jobs exceeds thresholds courts in this district have previously found significant (with many courts drawing the line around 20,000 jobs). The court therefore concluded that substantial evidence supported the ALJ's non-disability determination.
Disposition The court affirmed the Decision in part, denied Plaintiff's request for reversal and remand, granted the Commissioner's request for affirmance, and dismissed the action with prejudice.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 17-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.