Amy G. v. Bisignano
- Jerry Blackwell
- 0:24-cv-01348
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Amy G. v. Bisignano, Judge Blackwell remanded the Social Security case for an explanation about a proposed interaction limit.
Amy G. and the Commissioner of Social Security; the Social Security Administration must provide further explanation on remand.
What happened
In Amy G. v. Bisignano, the plaintiff and the Commissioner of Social Security asked the court for relief concerning the plaintiff’s Social Security claim. The opinion does not describe the underlying claim in detail.
Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins recommended a result in a May 8, 2025 report. No one objected by the deadline, so the district court reviewed the report for clear error and found none.
Judge Jerry W. Blackwell accepted the report, granted the plaintiff’s requests for relief, denied the Commissioner’s request, and sent the matter back to the Social Security Administration. The agency must further explain why the plaintiff’s ability to work should or should not be limited to brief and superficial interactions.
The detailed version
- Amy G. v. Bisignano · No. 0:24-cv-01348
- Jerry W. Blackwell
- June 12, 2025
Background
Amy G. brought this Social Security case against Frank Bisignano, the Commissioner of Social Security. The opinion does not provide the underlying administrative history or describe the plaintiff’s specific claims beyond the issue identified in the remand order.
Report and Recommendation
United States Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins issued a Report and Recommendation on May 8, 2025. No objections were filed within the permitted time. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the district court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error. The court found no clear error.
Ruling
Judge Jerry W. Blackwell accepted the Report and Recommendation. The court granted the plaintiff’s requests for relief and denied the Commissioner’s request for relief.
The court remanded the matter to the Social Security Administration under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The agency must provide further explanation about why Amy G.’s residual functional capacity—the work-related abilities used to assess disability—should or should not be limited to brief and superficial interaction.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.