Yoho v. Bisignano

This is a Report and Recommendation — a formal proposal by a magistrate judge to the presiding district judge — recommending that the court deny a plaintiff's challenge to the Social Security Administration's (SSA) denial of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. The magistrate judge found that substantial evidence supports the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) decision and recommended dismissal with prejudice.

Parties and Claims

Plaintiff Elija W. (identified by first name and last initial under the district's privacy policy) applied for SSI on January 6, 2022, at age 19. He alleged disability beginning March 15, 2020, based on autism spectrum disorder, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), eating disorder, depression, insomnia, and problems with both feet and hands. Defendant Frank Bisignano is the Commissioner of Social Security, substituted automatically upon taking office on May 6, 2025, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d).

The court notes a discrepancy in Plaintiff's briefing: his brief references Disability Insurance Benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, but the actual agency decision at issue denied SSI under Title XVI. The magistrate judge proceeds on the SSI record.

Administrative Proceedings

The SSA denied Plaintiff's application initially and on reconsideration. An ALJ held a hearing on January 19, 2024. Plaintiff was represented by an attorney. Both Plaintiff and a vocational expert testified.

Plaintiff's Hearing Testimony

Plaintiff testified he could not maintain employment because he could not reconcile employer rules and safety policies with productivity expectations, needed instructions repeated many times, no longer takes psychiatric medication because he does not find it effective, enjoys making pottery, and traveled to Singapore for a three-month vacation but spent much of the time in his room.

ALJ's Sequential Five-Step Analysis

The SSA uses a five-step sequential framework (20 C.F.R. § 416.920) to determine disability:

- Step 1: Is the claimant engaged in substantial gainful activity? The ALJ found Plaintiff had not engaged in substantially gainful work activity since his alleged onset date. - Step 2: Does the claimant have a severe impairment? The ALJ found the following severe impairments: autism spectrum disorder, depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, panic disorder, OCD, ADHD, osteoarthritis, and pronation deformity of both feet. The ALJ found cannabis and alcohol use disorder non-severe and determined Plaintiff does not have a medically determinable wrist impairment. - Step 3: Does the impairment meet or medically equal a listed impairment? The ALJ found Plaintiff has only moderate limitations in all four broad areas of mental functioning (understanding/remembering/applying information; interacting with others; concentrating/persisting/maintaining pace; and adapting/managing oneself) and therefore does not meet the criteria of any listed impairment, which would require either one extreme limitation or two marked limitations. - Step 4 — Residual Functional Capacity (RFC): The ALJ determined Plaintiff's RFC — the most he can do despite his limitations — as follows: medium work with avoidance of unprotected heights and moving mechanical parts; frequent operation of foot controls bilaterally; frequent push/pull with bilateral lower extremities; simple instructions only; occasional interaction with supervisors and coworkers; no public interaction; no specific production rate work (no assembly lines or hourly quotas); and only occasional adaptation to changes in a routine work setting. The ALJ concluded Plaintiff cannot perform his past relevant work as a stock clerk (generally heavy, semi-skilled). - Step 5: Can the claimant perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy? Based on vocational expert testimony, the ALJ identified three jobs Plaintiff can perform: cleaner II (approximately 53,010 jobs nationally), kitchen helper (approximately 120,293 jobs nationally), and hand packager (approximately 70,335 jobs nationally). The ALJ found the vocational expert appropriately relied on professional experience to address RFC limitations not covered by the Dictionary of Occupational Titles.

The ALJ concluded Plaintiff is not disabled. The Appeals Council denied review.

Medical Evidence Considered

The ALJ relied on: - State-agency psychological consultants Demetri Dress, Psy.D., and Ray Conroe, Ph.D., L.P., both of whom found Plaintiff has severe mental impairments but no more than moderate functional limitations. The ALJ found these opinions persuasive. - Dr. Alford Karayusuf's September 2022 consultative examination opinion, which concluded Plaintiff could follow simple instructions, was restricted to very brief and superficial interactions with coworkers, supervisors, and the public, and would do best working alone as much as possible. The ALJ found this opinion persuasive but did not adopt it entirely: rather than restricting all supervisor/coworker interaction to very brief and superficial contact, the ALJ permitted occasional interaction with coworkers and supervisors while barring all public contact. - Academic and school records from 2020 documenting autism-related challenges in the school setting, including an individualized education plan, daily professional support, and concerns about attendance, but also reflecting that Plaintiff's strengths include independence and that Plaintiff indicated special education services "may not be necessary." - Medical visit notes documenting appropriate grooming and hygiene, positive interactions with medical staff, normal mood and affect, intact judgment and insight, and no problems with temper control. - Plaintiff's own self-reports, which the ALJ found partially inconsistent with the objective evidence.

Plaintiff's Arguments on Review

Plaintiff raised two primary arguments: (1) the ALJ's RFC did not adequately account for his inability to function independently; and (2) the RFC is not supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, Plaintiff argued the ALJ failed to consider how a person who needed daily professional support to complete special education coursework two years earlier could be expected to manage workplace stressors independently without "off-task" behaviors caused by ruminating fears and rigid thinking. Plaintiff cited school records showing poor attendance, need for additional test time, and reliance on daily professional scheduling support.

Court's Analysis

Magistrate Judge Foster applied the deferential substantial-evidence standard: the court may not reverse the ALJ if his decision falls within the "available zone of choice" and substantial evidence — more than a scintilla, meaning evidence a reasonable mind could accept as adequate — supports it.

The magistrate judge found:

1. The ALJ properly relied on medical opinions. The ALJ appropriately considered the state-agency psychologists and Dr. Karayusuf's findings, all of which supported no more than moderate functional limitations. Under 2017 revised regulations (20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c), treating physicians are no longer entitled to special deference; the ALJ may weigh all opinions based on supportability and consistency.

2. The ALJ properly addressed lack of treatment. The absence of mental health treatment or medication management during the relevant period, and Plaintiff's own decision to stop medication, were legitimate factors the ALJ could consider in discounting the alleged severity of symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.930(b).

3. The ALJ properly reconciled conflicting evidence. The ALJ acknowledged Plaintiff's self-reports and academic records but found them partially inconsistent with objective medical findings, Plaintiff's IQ score of 104, his solo international travel, his ability to maintain friendships, and his appropriate behavior at medical appointments.

4. The ALJ did consider the academic records. Contrary to Plaintiff's argument, the ALJ expressly cited school records — including the notation that Plaintiff's own strengths included independence and that he indicated special education services may not be necessary.

5. No unsupported medical opinion backed Plaintiff's independence theory. The court observed that Plaintiff offered no professional medical evaluation supporting his contention that he cannot function independently in a workplace.

6. Reweighing evidence is not the court's role. The court quoted Schmitt v. Kijakazi, 27 F.4d 1353, 1361 (8th Cir. 2022): "it is not this Court's role to reweigh that evidence."

Disposition

Magistrate Judge Foster recommended: (1) Plaintiff's request for relief be DENIED; (2) Defendant's request for relief be GRANTED; and (3) the matter be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

Procedural Note

This is a Report and Recommendation, not a final order. It is not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit. Parties have 14 days after service to file specific written objections with the district court under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), and 14 days to respond to any objections under Local Rule 72.2(b)(2). The presiding district judge (identified in the case number as NEB) will then decide whether to adopt, modify, or reject the recommendation.