Gina v. Bisignano
- Dulce Foster
- 0:25-cv-03757
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 9
In Gina V. v. Bisignano, Magistrate Judge Foster denied Plaintiff's request for relief and dismissed the Social Security disability appeal with prejudice, finding Eighth Circuit precedent bars her argument that the ALJ improperly omitted a 'superficial' contact limitation from her functional capacity assessment.
Individuals appealing Social Security disability denials in the Eighth Circuit who seek remand on the grounds that an ALJ failed to incorporate 'superficial' or 'brief' contact limitations into their RFC after finding persuasive opinions that used those terms. This ruling confirms that such arguments are foreclosed by Eighth Circuit precedent in this district. Social Security claimants with mental health impairments affecting workplace interactions are most directly affected.
What happened
In Gina V. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security (No. 25-cv-3757), Plaintiff Gina V. asked a federal court to reverse the Social Security Administration's denial of her applications for disability benefits. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) — the official who initially decided her claim — found she had several severe mental health conditions, including PTSD, Borderline Personality Disorder, Bipolar Disorder, and Anxiety. The ALJ concluded she could still perform certain jobs with limitations, including only occasional interaction with supervisors, coworkers, and the public.
Gina V.'s sole argument on appeal was that the ALJ made an error by limiting her to only 'occasional' contact with others — meaning limited in how often — while failing to also restrict her to 'superficial' or 'brief' contact — meaning limited in depth or quality. She pointed to two medical opinions the ALJ had found persuasive that used the 'brief' and 'superficial' language. Courts in this district, including this judge, had previously agreed that 'occasional' and 'superficial' are meaningfully different terms and that an ALJ must explain omitting one when citing the other approvingly.
Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster ruled against Gina V. and dismissed the case with prejudice. The judge explained that after those earlier district court decisions, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals — the higher court whose rulings bind this court — squarely rejected the idea that omitting 'superficial' from an RFC is a legal error when 'occasional' is included, calling it a 'manufactured inconsistency.' Because Eighth Circuit precedent forecloses her argument, Plaintiff's request for relief was denied, the Commissioner's request for relief was granted, and the case was dismissed with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Gina v. Bisignano · No. 0:25-cv-03757
- Dulce J. Foster
- June 2, 2026
Background
Plaintiff Gina V. sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner of Social Security's September 24, 2024 decision denying her applications for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) under Title II and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. The parties consented to have Magistrate Judge Foster conduct all proceedings, including entry of final judgment.
Administrative Proceedings
The ALJ found Plaintiff suffers from several severe mental health impairments: PTSD, Borderline Personality Disorder, Bipolar Disorder, and Anxiety. Based on those impairments, the ALJ assessed Plaintiff's Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) — the most a claimant can do despite her limitations — to include, among other things, "occasional interaction with supervisors, coworkers, and the general public."
In reaching that RFC, the ALJ evaluated multiple medical opinions:
- Dr. Monique Bordeaux, Psy. D. (consultative psychological examiner): Found Plaintiff's ability to tolerate workplace mental stressors was below average and that her conditions "could adversely impact relationships in an employment type setting," but also observed she was friendly and tolerated the examination well. The ALJ deemed this opinion persuasive. - Dr. Alford Karayusuf, M.D. (examined Plaintiff in 2016 in connection with a prior claim): Opined Plaintiff is restricted to "brief, superficial, infrequent interactions" with others. The ALJ deemed this persuasive but noted it predated Plaintiff's alleged disability onset date. - Dr. Michael Cremerius, Ph.D. (State agency psychological consultant): Limited Plaintiff to "occasional contact with coworkers and supervisors" and "no responsibilities for servicing the public directly." The ALJ found this persuasive. - Dr. Kiela Bolden, Psy. D. (State agency psychological consultant): Found Plaintiff could "appropriately respond to others and changes in a work setting." The ALJ found this persuasive.
The ALJ rejected the opinion of Plaintiff's long-term therapist, Sarah Janzen, MSW/LICSW, finding it was inadequately supported by Janzen's own treatment records and inconsistent with Dr. Bordeaux's findings.
Based on vocational expert testimony, the ALJ concluded Plaintiff could perform jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy and therefore found her not disabled.
The Legal Issue
Plaintiff's sole argument was that the ALJ committed legal error by adopting an RFC limiting her to "occasional" interaction with others — a quantitative restriction on the frequency of contact — while omitting the "superficial" or "brief" contact limitations that appeared in the opinions of Drs. Karayusuf and Cremerius, which the ALJ had found persuasive. Plaintiff argued that "occasional" and "superficial" are materially distinct (one addresses frequency; the other addresses depth or quality), and that the ALJ was obligated either to incorporate the superficial limitation into the RFC or explain its omission.
Prior District Court Precedent
The court acknowledged that numerous judges in the District of Minnesota — including Judge Foster herself — had previously held that ALJs must explain the failure to adopt a "superficial" contact limitation when deemed persuasive, reasoning that "occasional" and "superficial" are not interchangeable. The opinion collected those prior cases, including Kenneth J.V. v. Kijakazi, Troy L.M. v. Kijakazi, Christine F. v. Kijakazi, and Sanders v. Astrue.
Eighth Circuit Precedent Controls
After those district court decisions were issued, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals — the appellate court whose decisions bind this district court — rejected this line of reasoning. In Lane v. O'Malley, No. 23-1432, 2024 WL 302395 (8th Cir. Jan. 26, 2024) (per curiam), the Eighth Circuit characterized as a "manufactured inconsistency" the argument that omitting "superficial" from an RFC while including "occasional" renders the ALJ's decision unsupported by substantial evidence. The court also cited Wyatt v. Kijakazi, No. 23-1559, 2023 WL 6629761 (8th Cir. Oct. 12, 2023) (per curiam), which similarly found no error in an ALJ's failure to adopt the exact limitations from persuasive opinions regarding workplace interactions.
The court further noted that at least one subsequent district court decision, Jennifer L. v. Comm'r of the Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 23-cv-1822, 2024 WL 4120375 (D. Minn. June 27, 2024), had already applied these Eighth Circuit cases to reject the same argument Plaintiff was raising. The court also noted that Plaintiff's counsel's law firm had represented the plaintiffs in both Wyatt and Jennifer L., yet counsel failed to bring those contrary precedents to the court's attention or attempt to distinguish them.
Ruling
Judge Foster concluded that Plaintiff's argument is "no longer viable in this Circuit" in light of controlling Eighth Circuit precedent. She denied Plaintiff's request for relief, granted the Commissioner's request for relief, and dismissed the action with prejudice.
Standard of Review
The court applied the substantial evidence standard: review is limited to whether the ALJ's decision is supported by "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148, 1154 (2019). If the record supports two inconsistent positions and the ALJ adopted one of them, the court must affirm.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.