Richard B. v. Bisignano

Case: Richard B. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security, Case No. 25-cv-928 (SGE), U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. Decided March 23, 2026, by Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins.

Background and Procedural History Richard B. (referred to by first name and last initial per district court policy for Social Security cases) applied for Social Security disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act on August 9, 2023. His application was denied initially and upon reconsideration. An ALJ held a hearing on February 3, 2025, and issued a written decision on February 12, 2025, finding Richard B. was not disabled. The Social Security Appeals Council declined to review the ALJ's decision. Richard B. filed this federal court action on March 12, 2025.

The ALJ's Five-Step Sequential Analysis Under Social Security regulations, an ALJ evaluates disability claims through a five-step process. At steps one and two, the ALJ found Richard B. had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since May 7, 2021, and had several severe impairments: degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine with thoracic compression deformity; right ankle trimalleolar fracture (a specific type of ankle break) with surgical repair; obstructive sleep apnea; and mental health conditions including depressive disorder, dysthymic disorder, anxiety disorder, and PTSD. At step three, the ALJ found none of these impairments met or equaled a listed impairment that would automatically qualify him for benefits.

At step four, the ALJ assessed Richard B.'s residual functional capacity (RFC) — meaning the most he could still do despite his impairments — and found he could perform medium work with various limitations, including only occasional use of foot controls and pushing/pulling with the right leg, no work at unprotected heights, only simple instructions, occasional changes in routine, and only occasional interaction with supervisors, coworkers, and the public. The ALJ found Richard B. could not return to his past relevant work, but at step five found he could perform other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy, including hand packager, machine packager, and package sealer machine tender.

Issue 1: Supportability and Consistency of Medical Opinions Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c, ALJs must explain how they evaluated the 'supportability' (whether a medical opinion is backed by objective evidence) and 'consistency' (whether it aligns with other medical and non-medical sources) of each medical opinion. Two state agency medical consultants provided opinions: Dr. Gregory Salmi, M.D. (initial level), and Dr. Stacy Holberg, D.O. (reconsideration level). Both found Richard B. capable of full-time medium-level work with certain postural limitations. Dr. Holberg also recommended an overhead reaching restriction for shoulder pain, which the ALJ declined to adopt.

The court found the ALJ adequately addressed supportability and consistency for both opinions. For Dr. Salmi, the ALJ noted his conclusions were 'supported with citations and a reasonable explanation' and were 'consistent with the overall record,' including clinical findings, treatment history, and Richard B.'s stated daily activities. For Dr. Holberg, the ALJ found her opinion 'mostly consistent' with the record but declined the overhead reaching limitation because the record did not support that restriction. The court found these explanations satisfied the regulatory requirements, and ruled in the Commissioner's favor on this issue.

Issue 2: Mischaracterization of Evidence and Flawed Symptom Evaluation SSR 16-3p requires ALJs to evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of a claimant's reported symptoms, considering factors such as daily activities, pain duration and frequency, aggravating factors, medication effects, and functional restrictions. The court identified multiple errors in the ALJ's analysis.

First, the court found the ALJ's reasoning about Richard B.'s daily activities was circular and self-defeating: the ALJ both discounted Richard B.'s self-reported limitations as unverifiable and used his reported activities (personal care, walking up to 10 minutes, meal preparation, light housework, caring for dogs, reading, watching television) to suggest he was not disabled. The court noted this left Richard B. in an impossible position — any activity he reported would be used against him, while denials of activity would not be believed.

Second, the court found the activities cited by the ALJ were insufficient to support a finding that Richard B. could perform medium work, citing Eighth Circuit precedent that 'the ability to do activities such as light housework and visiting with friends provides little or no support for the finding that a claimant can perform full-time competitive work.' The court also noted an internal inconsistency: the ALJ implied these activities showed Richard B. was not disabled, yet also found he could no longer perform his past medium work.

Third, the court identified specific factual mischaracterizations in the ALJ's recitation of the medical record: (1) the ALJ cited a June 2024 note for 'comfortable ambulation,' but that note referred to the fit of Richard B.'s orthotics, not his unassisted walking ability (R. 1408); (2) the ALJ cited September 2023 appointment records as showing no gait deficits, but those records did not mention gait at all (R. 446, 514-15); and (3) the ALJ repeatedly stated Richard B.'s alleged disability onset date was May 7, 2021, when the record clearly showed he claimed his disability began January 17, 2023 (R. 177).

Ruling Magistrate Judge Elkins granted Richard B.'s request for relief, denied the Commissioner's request, and remanded (sent back) the case to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The court declined to reweigh the evidence or substitute its own judgment for the ALJ's, but concluded it could not determine whether the ALJ's RFC finding was supported by substantial evidence given the factual mischaracterizations and flawed reasoning. The court explicitly noted the ALJ may have had valid reasons to discount Richard B.'s reported symptoms, but those reasons were not adequately explained.