Adams v. Bisignano
- Dulce Foster
- 0:24-cv-01310
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 17
In Stacey A. v. Bisignano, Judge Foster granted in part Plaintiff's motion and remanded her Social Security disability case because the Appeals Council improperly ignored new medical evidence about her nerve impairments.
Individuals who have been denied Social Security disability benefits (including Disabled Widow(er)'s Benefits and Supplemental Security Income) and who submit new medical evidence to the Social Security Appeals Council after an ALJ's decision, particularly where that evidence relates to conditions already considered but postdates the decision by a short period. Also relevant to claimants whose cases involve upper-extremity or nerve impairments that may not have been fully documented during the administrative proceedings.
What happened
In Stacey A. v. Bisignano (Case No. 24-cv-1310), a 50-year-old woman named Stacey A. applied for Social Security disability benefits in 2021, claiming she became disabled in January 2020 due to conditions including diabetes, back pain, carpal tunnel syndrome, and other impairments. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied her benefits in May 2023, finding that while she had several severe impairments, she could still perform certain light-duty jobs. Stacey A. then submitted additional medical evidence — nerve conduction and electromyography studies conducted just 15 days after the ALJ's decision — showing severe bilateral nerve damage in both arms. The Social Security Appeals Council refused to consider this new evidence, ruling it fell outside the time period covered by the ALJ's decision.
The key legal dispute was whether the Appeals Council was required to consider the new nerve studies. The court found the evidence was new (not just a repeat of prior records), material (directly relevant to whether Stacey A.'s upper-extremity impairments were truly non-severe, as the ALJ had concluded), and related to the period under review, because a chronic condition cannot plausibly have dramatically worsened in just 15 days. The court also found factual and legal errors in the ALJ's original decision: the ALJ incorrectly stated Stacey A. had no prior carpal tunnel treatment before late 2021, when the record showed otherwise; and the ALJ misapplied the 12-month disability duration rule by measuring it from when treatment began rather than from when the impairment became disabling. The court ruled the government's jurisdictional argument — that the court could not review the Appeals Council's refusal — was inapplicable here because the Appeals Council never actually considered the evidence at all.
Judge Dulce J. Foster granted Stacey A.'s motion for summary judgment in part, denied the Commissioner's request for relief, reversed the denial of benefits, and remanded the case to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings. On remand, the ALJ must consider the new nerve study evidence, re-evaluate the persuasiveness of a medical opinion from Dr. Grace Totoe that had been discounted, correct the factual and legal errors identified by the court, and recall a vocational expert if needed based on any changes to Stacey A.'s assessed functional limitations. The court rejected Stacey A.'s separate argument that the ALJ erred by not specifically addressing schizophrenia spectrum disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder, finding the ALJ had adequately considered the full mental health record. The case was dismissed with prejudice upon entry of judgment.
The detailed version
- Adams v. Bisignano · No. 0:24-cv-01310
- Dulce J. Foster
- July 23, 2025
Background
Plaintiff Stacey A. (identified by first name and last initial per District of Minnesota policy for Social Security cases) applied on May 5, 2021 for Disabled Widow(er)'s Benefits (DWB) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) under the Social Security Act. She alleged disability onset on January 1, 2020, based on blurry vision, type two diabetes, tuberculosis, back pain, heart issues, chest palpitations, and symptoms from human papillomavirus. She was 50 years old at the time of application with one year of college and prior work as a call agent, cashier, and warehouse associate.
Defendant Frank Bisignano is the Commissioner of Social Security, substituted automatically as defendant upon taking office on May 6, 2025, replacing the prior Commissioner.
Administrative Proceedings
The Social Security Administration denied Stacey A.'s applications initially and on reconsideration. An ALJ held a hearing on January 12, 2023, at which Stacey A. (represented by counsel) and a vocational expert testified.
The ALJ applied the standard five-step sequential evaluation:
- Step 1: Stacey A. was not engaged in substantial gainful activity. - Step 2: The ALJ found several impairments non-severe (myopia, astigmatism, presbyopia, hepatic steatosis, latent tuberculosis, and carpal tunnel syndrome) and others severe in combination (obesity, thoracic degenerative disc disease, borderline intellectual function, history of learning disorder, depression, anxiety, and diabetes mellitus). - Step 3: No impairment or combination met or medically equaled a listed impairment. - Step 4 (RFC determination): The ALJ determined Stacey A. had the residual functional capacity (RFC — the most a claimant can do despite her limitations) to perform light work, with restrictions including: frequently climbing ramps/stairs but never ladders/ropes/scaffolds; frequently balancing, stooping, kneeling, crouching, and crawling; avoiding concentrated exposure to unprotected heights; persisting in simple, routine tasks; and engaging only in superficial interactions with others. - Step 4 (past work): Stacey A. could not perform her past relevant work in customer service, which exceeded her RFC. - Step 5: Based on vocational expert testimony, the ALJ found she could perform three jobs existing in significant numbers nationally: Routing Clerk (~140,000 jobs), Mail Clerk (~11,000 jobs), and Merchandise Marker (~137,000 jobs). The ALJ concluded she was not disabled from January 1, 2020 through May 3, 2023 (the date of his decision).
Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Finding
The ALJ found carpal tunnel syndrome non-severe, reasoning that Stacey A. did not seek hand/wrist treatment until nearly two years after her alleged onset date, and that there was "no objective evidence that limitations from the impairment will persist for 12 months now that treatment has begun." The ALJ also declined to find persuasive the October 1, 2021 medical opinion of Dr. Grace Totoe, who assessed decreased grip, grasp, and pinch strength and recommended related limitations, because the ALJ found it unclear how any condition would limit grip and pinch strength so significantly.
Mental Impairment Findings
The ALJ found moderate limitations in interacting with others and in understanding, remembering, or applying information, and mild limitations in concentrating, persisting, or maintaining pace and in adapting or managing herself. He did not specifically address schizophrenia spectrum disorder or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as separate diagnoses.
Appeals Council Proceedings
Stacey A. appealed on December 3, 2023 and submitted additional evidence — electromyography (EMG) and nerve conduction velocity (NCV) studies conducted May 18–23, 2023, fifteen days after the ALJ's decision. These studies showed "[s]evere bilateral ulnar neuropathies across the elbow as seen in cubital tunnel syndrome. Moderate bilateral median neuropathies across the wrist as seen in carpal tunnel syndrome. Likely diffuse axonal polyneuropathy." The physical exam also showed "bilateral first dorsal interosseous weakness" and noted "bilateral hand numbness (left worse than right) over one year."
The Appeals Council declined to consider this Additional Evidence, stating it "does not relate to the period at issue" (on or before May 3, 2023), and denied review.
Legal Standards
The court reviews the Commissioner's decision to determine whether it is supported by substantial evidence — meaning more than a mere scintilla, and such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. If two inconsistent positions can be drawn from the evidence and one represents the ALJ's finding, the ALJ's decision must be affirmed. However, remand is warranted when the ALJ's factual findings are insufficient for the court to conclude substantial evidence supports the decision.
As to Appeals Council review, the Council must consider newly submitted evidence if it is: (1) new (not merely cumulative), (2) material (relevant to the claimant's condition for the period benefits were denied), (3) related to the period on or before the date of the hearing decision, (4) reasonably likely to change the outcome, and (5) supported by good cause for the claimant's failure to submit it earlier. Courts review de novo whether evidence is new, material, and timely. The exact timing of additional evidence is not dispositive of materiality.
Holdings
Jurisdiction Over Appeals Council's Decision
The Commissioner argued the court lacked jurisdiction to review the Appeals Council's denial of review, citing Browning v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 817 (8th Cir. 1992). The court rejected this argument. It distinguished Browning — which held no jurisdiction where the Appeals Council actually considered the evidence and found it would not alter the ALJ's decision — because here the Appeals Council did not consider the Additional Evidence at all. The court found substantial post-Browning Eighth Circuit authority supported its jurisdiction to review whether the Appeals Council's failure to consider newly submitted evidence was erroneous.
The Additional Evidence Was Improperly Disregarded
The court held that the Additional Evidence was:
- New: It consists of EMG and NCV studies not previously in the record and is not merely cumulative. - Material: It directly addresses the severity of the upper extremity impairments the ALJ found non-severe; it is relevant to Dr. Totoe's opinion (which the ALJ discounted partly because he found no apparent cause for hand weakness); and a vocational expert testified that limiting Stacey A. to only "occasional" handling and fingering would preclude all identified jobs — meaning the Additional Evidence could directly affect the disability determination. - Related to the relevant time period: Although the studies were conducted 15 days after the ALJ's decision, the court found it implausible that Stacey A.'s chronic condition suddenly worsened in that brief interval. The evidence describes the same condition the ALJ already considered, providing more specific severity detail. The court applied the principle from Williams v. Sullivan, 905 F.2d 214 (8th Cir. 1990), that timing alone is not dispositive.
The court declined to address whether the Additional Evidence would have changed the overall outcome, because that analysis applies only when the Appeals Council actually considered the evidence. Here, the court's role was limited to determining whether the Appeals Council should have considered it — and it should have.
Good Cause Requirement
Neither party addressed the good cause requirement under 20 C.F.R. § 404.970(b), and the Appeals Council made no determination on it. The court cited authority from this and other districts holding that remand is appropriate when the other requirements of Section 404.970(a)(5) are met but the good cause issue is unresolved.
Factual and Legal Errors in the ALJ's Decision
The court identified two errors requiring correction on remand:
1. Factual error: The ALJ stated Stacey A. did not receive carpal tunnel treatment until late 2021. However, the record shows that at her December 2021 appointment, Stacey A. reported prior carpal tunnel treatment, a prescription for gabapentin, and a cancelled nerve test (due to COVID-19). The ALJ's characterization contradicts the record.
2. Legal error: The ALJ found the carpal tunnel syndrome non-severe partly because there was "no objective evidence that limitations from the impairment will persist for 12 months now that treatment has begun," effectively measuring the 12-month duration requirement from the start of treatment. The court found this legally incorrect. Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.335(c)(1) and Social Security Ruling 23-1p, the 12-month period may be measured from any date when the impairment became disabling — not from when treatment commenced.
Mental Impairments
The court rejected Stacey A.'s argument that the ALJ erred by failing to specifically address schizophrenia spectrum disorder and PTSD. Under Eighth Circuit precedent, an ALJ does not err by failing to identify a specific impairment at step two unless it is "separate and apart" from other listed impairments. The court found that the schizophrenia spectrum and PTSD diagnoses appeared in only a single December 2022 appointment, while elsewhere Stacey A. denied hallucinations, illusions, delusions, and PTSD symptoms. The ALJ's detailed mental health analysis — covering emotional fluctuations, memory and concentration deficits, social anxiety, panic, history of hallucinations, conservative treatment, and refusal of psychotropic medication — adequately encompassed the relevant symptoms, and the court found no error.
Disposition
Judge Foster:
- Granted in part Stacey A.'s Motion for Summary Judgment.
- Denied the Commissioner's request for relief.
- Reversed the Commissioner's denial of benefits and remanded the matter pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings.
- Dismissed with prejudice (as the final judgment terminating the federal court case upon remand to the agency).
On remand, the ALJ is directed to: (1) consider whether the Additional Evidence alters the conclusion that Stacey A. can perform jobs existing in significant numbers nationally; (2) re-weigh Dr. Totoe's medical opinion in light of the Additional Evidence; (3) correct the factual and legal errors identified above; and (4) recall a vocational expert for testimony to the extent necessary to address a new hypothetical based on any modified RFC.
Read the full 17-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.