Michael G. v. Bisignano

Background

Michael G. asked the District of Minnesota to review the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying his application for supplemental security income. The application alleged disability beginning April 1, 2018, based on arthritis, asthma, obesity, depression, and anxiety. After a hearing, Administrative Law Judge Nicholas Grey found that Michael G. was not disabled from the application date through March 22, 2023.

At the administrative hearing, the administrative law judge found obesity to be a severe impairment. He found that anxiety and depressive disorders caused only mild limitations and were therefore non-severe. He determined that Michael G. had the residual functional capacity—the most he could do despite his limitations—to perform the full range of sedentary work. Based on vocational-expert testimony, the administrative law judge found that Michael G. could perform his past work as a bookkeeper.

The Commissioner moved for summary judgment, which asks the court to rule because the record shows no legally material dispute. Michael G. presented his request for judicial review and sought reversal or remand.

Arguments

Michael G. argued that the administrative law judge failed to include or explain the omission of his mild mental limitations when determining his residual functional capacity. He also argued that the administrative law judge selected only unfavorable evidence, failed to fairly consider evidence supporting his mental-health claims, and used an inadequate hypothetical question for the vocational expert.

The Commissioner argued that the administrative law judge considered the relevant evidence and that the record supported an RFC without mental restrictions. The Commissioner relied on Michael G.’s activities, bookkeeping work, reported improvement with medication, limited and conservative treatment, lack of later mental-health records, and failure to attend post-hearing consultative examinations.

Analysis

The court explained that an administrative law judge must consider both severe and non-severe impairments when determining residual functional capacity. The court nevertheless found that the administrative law judge had considered Michael G.’s mild mental limitations and adequately explained why they were not included in the RFC. The administrative law judge discussed Michael G.’s activities, including bookkeeping, social interactions, exercise, and other activities, as well as the absence of treatment records after approximately 2018 and the state-agency psychologists’ conclusions that the evidence was insufficient for a work-related function-by-function assessment.

The court then considered whether substantial evidence supported the RFC. It concluded that the administrative law judge reasonably relied on Michael G.’s activities, continued bookkeeping, testimony that his employment ended because there was not enough work rather than because of medical limitations, improvement with medication, generally normal mental-status findings, limited treatment, and failure to attend a later consultative examination. The court rejected the argument that the administrative law judge improperly cherry-picked the evidence and stated that a court may not reweigh the evidence when substantial evidence supports the administrative decision.

Because the RFC was supported by substantial evidence, the court also found that the hypothetical question to the vocational expert was proper. The vocational expert’s testimony that Michael G. could perform his past bookkeeping work therefore supported the denial of benefits.

Recommendation and disposition

Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright recommended that Michael G.’s request for reversal or remand be denied, that the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment be granted, and that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice. The report and recommendation states that it is not itself an order or judgment and is not directly appealable to the Court of Appeals. It states that objections could be filed under the District of Minnesota’s local rules.

Party substitution

The complaint originally named Martin O’Malley. The report states that Frank Bisignano became Commissioner of Social Security on May 7, 2025, and should be substituted as defendant under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d).