Krystof B. v. Bisignano

Background

Krystof B. challenged the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of his application for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits. He argued that the administrative law judge (ALJ) made significant legal errors and that the decision was not supported by substantial evidence, meaning relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate to support the conclusion.

Krystof B. applied for benefits on April 3, 2019. The agency denied the application initially and on reconsideration. After hearings, the ALJ decided that Krystof B. was not disabled. The Appeals Council denied review on June 7, 2024, and Krystof B. filed this federal case.

ALJ’s Decision

The ALJ found that Krystof B. had several severe impairments but that they did not meet or equal an impairment listed in the Social Security regulations. The ALJ determined that he had the residual functional capacity—the ability to work despite his limitations—to perform light work with additional physical, environmental, mental, and social restrictions. The ALJ found that he could not perform his past relevant work but could perform other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

The ALJ relied on testimony from vocational expert Jesse Ogren. Ogren testified that a person with Krystof B.’s residual functional capacity and work experience could perform jobs such as garment bagger and hand packager, totaling approximately 158,000 jobs nationally. The ALJ found this testimony consistent with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles and concluded that Krystof B. was not disabled.

Court’s Analysis

Krystof B. argued that the ALJ improperly relied on Jesse Ogren’s testimony because it conflicted with earlier testimony from vocational expert Kenneth Ogren. Kenneth Ogren had testified that limiting standing and walking to a maximum of four hours in an eight-hour workday would reduce work from light to sedentary. The court concluded that the testimony did not conflict because Jesse Ogren explained that the jobs he identified were light work based on their lifting requirements and overall activity, even though they did not require continuous standing.

The court also explained that the ALJ had expressly disregarded Kenneth Ogren’s testimony and relied only on Jesse Ogren’s testimony. Krystof B. did not identify a conflict between Jesse Ogren’s testimony and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. The court therefore concluded that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s decision.

Recommendation and Procedural Status

Judge Elkins recommended that Krystof B.’s request for relief be denied, that the Commissioner’s request for relief be granted, and that the matter be dismissed. The recommendation also stated that the ALJ’s decision should be affirmed.

The document is a report and recommendation, not a final district court order or judgment. It states that the parties may file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with the recommendation. The opinion itself does not state that the district court had adopted the recommendation.