Rondeau v. Bisignano
- Elizabeth Wright
- 0:24-cv-02049
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 69
In Rondeau v. Bisignano, Judge Wright upheld the Social Security Administration's denial of disability benefits to a veteran with PTSD, sleep apnea, and other conditions.
Military veterans and other individuals who have been denied Social Security Disability Insurance benefits and are seeking judicial review of the agency's decision, particularly those with mental health conditions such as PTSD, anxiety, and depression whose claims involve questions about functional limitations in workplace settings.
What happened
In Rondeau v. Bisignano (Case No. 24-cv-02049), a military veteran named James R. sought federal court review after the Social Security Administration denied his claim for Title II Disability Insurance benefits. He had applied for benefits based on combat-related stress, sleep apnea, insomnia, anger management problems, and other conditions stemming from his Army service. An administrative law judge had found him not disabled after conducting the required five-step evaluation process, concluding that despite his limitations he could perform jobs such as custodian, hospital housekeeper, or laboratory equipment cleaner, all of which exist in significant numbers in the national economy.
James R. raised several challenges to the denial. He argued that the administrative law judge wrongly found he did not meet the mental health disability listings, that his ability to do physical and social tasks at work was understated, and that his subjective reports of fatigue, sleep problems, depression, and anger were improperly discounted. He also challenged technical aspects of the step-five analysis, including whether the vocational expert's job numbers were reliable and whether the jobs identified were realistically available. His retained expert, a registered nurse named Emily Tiderington, had opined that he was incapable of even low-stress work and would miss more than four days of work per month.
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright denied James R.'s request for remand or reversal and dismissed his complaint with prejudice. The court found that substantial evidence — meaning enough evidence that a reasonable mind could accept it as adequate — supported the administrative law judge's conclusions at each step. The court found the administrative law judge properly weighed the medical evidence, appropriately discounted Tiderington's opinions as inconsistent with the broader record, correctly considered James R.'s conservative treatment history and his own reported daily activities, and did not err in relying on the vocational expert's testimony or the Dictionary of Occupational Titles for job information.
The detailed version
- Rondeau v. Bisignano · No. 0:24-cv-02049
- Elizabeth Wright
- Sept. 26, 2025
Background
Plaintiff James R., a military veteran, filed an application for Title II Disability Insurance benefits on July 11, 2022, alleging disability as of March 1, 2018, based on combat-related stress, sleep apnea, insomnia, hypervigilance, anger management problems, and anhedonia (inability to feel pleasure). His application was denied initially and on reconsideration. After a hearing on February 26, 2024, Administrative Law Judge Brenda Rosten ("the ALJ") issued a decision dated June 22, 2022 [note: the opinion states this date; it may reflect a typographical error in the underlying record], finding Plaintiff not disabled. The Appeals Council denied further review on April 22, 2024, making the ALJ's decision the final agency decision. Plaintiff then sought judicial review in federal district court under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
The ALJ's Five-Step Analysis
Under the Social Security Administration's five-step sequential evaluation process:
- Step 1: Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since July 1, 2019, and met the insured status requirements through December 31, 2025. - Step 2: Plaintiff had severe impairments including insomnia secondary to obstructive sleep apnea, obesity, major depressive disorder (moderate, chronic), generalized anxiety disorder (chronic), panic disorder with specific phobias, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and alcohol use disorder. - Step 3: Plaintiff did not have an impairment meeting or medically equaling a listed presumptively disabling condition. - Step 4: The ALJ assessed Plaintiff's residual functional capacity (RFC) — the most he can still do despite his limitations — as less than a full range of medium work, with significant physical and mental restrictions including limiting him to only occasional, non-collaborative interactions with coworkers and only incidental contact with the public. - Step 5: Based on the RFC and testimony from a vocational expert (VE), the ALJ found Plaintiff could perform jobs existing in significant numbers nationally: Custodian (approximately 38,000 jobs), Hospital Housekeeper (approximately 40,000 jobs), and Lab Equipment Cleaner (approximately 25,000 jobs).
Key Medical Evidence
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) assigned Plaintiff a 70 percent disability rating for trauma-related disorder in February 2020. However, the VA's rating is not binding on the Social Security Administration. The VA medical records, which formed the bulk of Plaintiff's treatment history, documented fluctuating symptoms over the years. Plaintiff frequently denied depression, anxiety, fatigue, or PTSD symptoms at various appointments, demonstrated normal cognitive functioning and memory, and consistently presented as cooperative and pleasant during medical visits, with one notable exception in January 2024 when he yelled at a doctor. Plaintiff was repeatedly prescribed psychiatric medications but declined to take them, stating he was uncertain medications were necessary.
Plaintiff's retained expert, Emily Tiderington, BSN, RN, opined based on records review that Plaintiff had extreme limitations in interacting with others and adapting in the workplace, would miss more than four days of work per month, and met multiple mental health disability listings. The ALJ found her opinions unpersuasive as inconsistent with the broader medical record.
Two state agency psychologists (Dr. Mannis and Dr. Butler) found Plaintiff's mental impairments non-severe with only mild limitations across all four functional areas. Two state agency physicians assessed Plaintiff's physical RFC, with some differences between initial and reconsideration opinions regarding postural limitations.
Court's Analysis of Plaintiff's Arguments
Mental Health Listings (Step 3)
Plaintiff argued he met Listings 12.04 (depression), 12.06 (anxiety), 12.08 (personality/impulse disorders), and 12.15 (trauma). To satisfy Paragraph B of these listings, a claimant must show either one extreme limitation or two marked limitations across four functional domains: (1) understanding, remembering, or applying information; (2) interacting with others; (3) concentrating, persisting, or maintaining pace; and (4) adapting or managing oneself.
The court reviewed the ALJ's findings of mild limitations in domains (1) and (3), and moderate limitations in domains (2) and (4), and found each supported by substantial evidence. The court noted that Plaintiff's own function reports, medical records showing normal memory and concentration, his daily activities, and his admitted ability to follow written and spoken instructions all supported the ALJ's findings. The court declined to reweigh the evidence in Plaintiff's favor.
RFC — Postural Limitations
The court acknowledged that the ALJ found the opinions of two state agency doctors persuasive but adopted a finding of frequent (rather than occasional) ability to stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl — a limitation more generous to Plaintiff than one of the two doctors recommended. The court agreed the ALJ failed to explain this discrepancy, but found the error harmless. Because the Lab Equipment Cleaner position (DOT# 381.687-022) involves no greater than occasional postural activities and Plaintiff did not argue his abilities were below occasional, the error had no effect on the outcome. With 25,000 Lab Equipment Cleaner jobs nationally, the Commissioner met the step-five burden even excluding the other two positions.
RFC — Social Limitations
The court upheld the ALJ's limitation restricting Plaintiff to only occasional, non-collaborative interactions with coworkers and only incidental public contact. The court found this was supported by Plaintiff's own testimony that he had no angry confrontations at work, that his last job ended due to a reduction in force rather than misconduct, that his former boss offered to help him find new employment, that he maintained relationships with his son and neighbors, and that the medical record consistently showed cooperative and pleasant behavior.
RFC — Subjective Symptoms
The ALJ found Plaintiff's subjective complaints only partially consistent with the record. The court upheld this determination, noting: (1) Plaintiff's sleep apnea was mild and did not interfere with his ability to work according to the record; (2) Plaintiff repeatedly denied fatigue; (3) Plaintiff refused prescribed psychiatric medications without demonstrating they were ineffective; (4) Plaintiff's extensive daily activities (hunting, building a farmhouse, exercising vigorously, caring for his elderly father, traveling internationally) undercut claims of disabling limitations; and (5) Plaintiff's employment ended due to a reduction in force, not his medical conditions.
Step Five Challenges
The court rejected four step-five arguments:
1. Hypothetical to VE: The RFC stated "less than a full range of medium work" but the hypothetical did not use that phrase. The court held that the RFC is rendered "less than full range" by the nonexertional limitations included in the hypothetical itself, consistent with Social Security Ruling (SSR) 83-14.
2. Outdated DOT: Plaintiff argued the DOT descriptions were outdated (some from the 1970s–1980s). The court held that under SSR 00-4p (applicable because the ALJ's decision predated January 6, 2025, when SSR 24-3p took effect), the DOT remains the primary reference and the ALJ committed no legal error in relying on it.
3. Source of job numbers: Plaintiff argued the VE did not identify the data sources for job number estimates. The court held SSR 00-4p does not require this disclosure, and Plaintiff cited no authority to the contrary.
4. Lack of regional job numbers: Plaintiff argued national job totals were insufficient without a regional breakdown. The court sided with what it characterized as the pragmatic majority view among district courts — that national job numbers can suffice where the nature of the jobs does not suggest they are geographically concentrated. The court found 25,000 Lab Equipment Cleaner jobs nationally sufficient, albeit noting it was a close call.
Disposition
The court denied Plaintiff's brief seeking remand or reversal, granted the Commissioner's brief in opposition, and dismissed Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice.
Read the full 69-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.