Jervis v. Bisignano
- Shannon Elkins
- 0:24-cv-02793
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 14
In Tracy D.G. J. v. Bisignano, Magistrate Judge Elkins granted the plaintiff's request and remanded her Social Security disability case because the ALJ changed a key work-limitation figure without explanation and failed to evaluate a relevant disability listing.
People who have been denied Social Security disability benefits (SSDI or SSI) and whose administrative law judge changed a functional limitation between the hearing and the written decision without explanation, or whose ALJ failed to evaluate whether their impairments met a specific disability listing — particularly those with documented very low body weight related to a digestive disorder.
What happened
In Tracy D.G. J. v. Bisignano (Case No. 24-cv-2793), Tracy D.G. J. challenged the Social Security Administration's denial of her applications for Social Security Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income. The administrative law judge (ALJ) had found her not disabled at the final step of the required five-step evaluation process, concluding she could perform jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy. Ms. J argued that the ALJ's decision was not supported by adequate evidence and contained legal errors.
The court focused on two problems with the ALJ's decision. First, at the administrative hearing the ALJ asked the vocational expert — a specialist who testifies about available jobs — to evaluate a hypothetical worker who would be off-task at least 20 percent of the workday. The expert testified that being off-task more than 20 percent would eliminate all competitive employment. Yet in her written decision, the ALJ quietly reduced that figure to 15 percent — just enough to allow a finding of no disability — without explaining why. Second, the ALJ never assessed whether Ms. J's conditions met "Listing 5.08," a Social Security regulation that automatically qualifies certain people with very low body weight due to a digestive disorder as disabled. The record contained multiple documented body-mass-index readings below the listing's threshold of 17.50, and evidence of chronic digestive problems, but the ALJ's written decision never mentioned the listing at all.
Magistrate Judge Elkins granted Ms. J's request for relief, denied the Commissioner's request to affirm the decision, and remanded the case to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings. The judge found that the unexplained reduction of the off-task limitation from 20 percent to 15 percent — the very change that made the difference between a disability finding and denial — lacked any logical basis in the record. The judge also found that the ALJ's complete silence on Listing 5.08, when the record contained evidence that could support that listing, prevented meaningful review and required remand. Ms. J's separately filed motion for summary judgment was stricken because the applicable procedural rules no longer permit that type of motion in Social Security appeals.
The detailed version
- Jervis v. Bisignano · No. 0:24-cv-02793
- Shannon G. Elkins
- Sept. 30, 2025
Background
Plaintiff Tracy D.G. J. ("Ms. J") applied for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) under Title II of the Social Security Act on December 2, 2021, and for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) on December 8, 2021. Her initial applications and request for reconsideration were denied. A video hearing was held before ALJ Mary D. Morrow on March 2, 2023, and the ALJ issued a determination of non-disability on March 22, 2023. The Appeals Council declined to review the ALJ's decision. Ms. J then filed this federal action on July 19, 2024.
The ALJ's Five-Step Sequential Evaluation
The Social Security regulations require ALJs to use a five-step sequential method to evaluate disability claims. At step two, ALJ Morrow found Ms. J had numerous severe impairments, including protein S deficiency, cardiac arrest, small PFO and status-post PFO closure, migraines, leiomyoma, chronic pain syndrome, major depressive disorder, anxiety, social anxiety disorder, panic disorder, symptoms of an eating disorder, and alcohol use disorder (in remission). At step three, the ALJ found Ms. J's impairments did not meet or medically equal any listed impairment.
At step four, the ALJ assessed Ms. J's Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) — the most a claimant can do despite her limitations. The RFC limited Ms. J to light work with numerous restrictions, including never working under strobe or flashing lights, performing only simple routine tasks not at a production-rate pace, only occasional interaction with others, and — critically — being off-task 15 percent of the workday due to visual disturbances. The ALJ found Ms. J incapable of past relevant work.
At step five, the ALJ relied on the testimony of vocational expert (VE) Frank Samlaska, who identified three jobs — housekeeper, order caller, and collator operator — totaling approximately 221,439 positions in the national economy. The ALJ acknowledged that the hypothetical she posed to the VE at the hearing included an off-task limitation of "at least 20 percent of the workday" rather than 15 percent, and that the VE testified no jobs would be available for someone off-task at least 20 percent. The ALJ's written decision adopted a 15 percent figure instead, noting that the VE testified jobs would be available at levels below 20 percent.
Legal Standard
Federal courts review the Commissioner's denial of disability benefits to determine whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole and is free of legal error. Substantial evidence is "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Courts review ALJ factual findings deferentially and may not reweigh the evidence or review the record de novo. However, reversal is appropriate when the ALJ's decision falls outside the "zone of choice" created by the evidentiary record.
Issue One: Off-Task Limitation Not Supported by Substantial Evidence
Ms. J argued that the ALJ's post-hearing reduction of the off-task limitation from 20 percent to 15 percent lacked evidentiary support and logical explanation. The Commissioner responded that Ms. J failed to provide medical evidence supporting a greater limitation, and that the 15 percent figure was effectively immaterial because any off-task rate under 20 percent would not be work-preclusive.
The court rejected the Commissioner's arguments. The ALJ's own decision cited medical records documenting "visual obscurations" lasting 20–60 minutes, occurring 4–8 times per day — evidence that the Commissioner's argument that Ms. J lacked supporting medical evidence overlooked. The court also distinguished the real question: not whether someone with a 15 percent off-task rate could work, but whether substantial evidence supports a 15 percent rather than 20 percent limitation for Ms. J specifically.
The court applied the "logical bridge" requirement — the principle that an ALJ must build a reasoned connection between the evidence and each RFC conclusion sufficient to permit meaningful judicial review. The court found the ALJ failed to provide any reasoning for discarding the 20 percent limitation posed to the VE and adopting the lower 15 percent figure. The court noted that the hypothetical posed at the hearing likely reflected the ALJ's own initial assessment of what the record supported, and that the VE testified jobs would exist only if off-task behavior was lower than 20 percent. Reducing the off-task limitation to just below the threshold that would preclude employment, without explanation, does not constitute neutral development of the record. The court stated: "It is possible that the ALJ has a logical reason other than the denial of benefits. Unfortunately, the decision does not provide one."
Because the matter was being remanded on this ground, the court declined to separately address Ms. J's challenge to the Appeals Council's rejection of her late-submitted evidence.
Issue Two: Failure to Evaluate Listing 5.08
Ms. J also argued that the ALJ committed legal error by failing entirely to consider whether her conditions met Listing 5.08, which addresses weight loss due to a digestive disorder. Listing 5.08 requires a body mass index (BMI) below 17.50 documented on at least two evaluations at least 60 days apart within a consecutive 12-month period, despite continuing treatment as prescribed. The claimant bears the burden of proving her impairment meets or equals a listing, and must satisfy all specified criteria.
The court found that the ALJ's step-three analysis made no reference to Listing 5.08, yet the record contained multiple documented BMI readings below 17.50 and evidence of treatment for chronic diarrhea and bowel lesions. The court acknowledged the general rule that an ALJ's failure to explain a factual finding is not itself grounds for reversal when the record supports the overall determination. However, citing Eighth Circuit precedent, the court held that remand is required when the ALJ's factual findings are insufficient to permit meaningful appellate review — particularly when the ALJ's written decision fails entirely to reference the applicable listing.
The court rejected the Commissioner's argument that Ms. J failed to demonstrate satisfaction of every element of Listing 5.08, explaining that it is the ALJ's responsibility in the first instance to apply the regulations and evaluate whether a claimant's impairments meet or equal a listed impairment. Because it was unclear whether the ALJ even considered Listing 5.08, remand was required.
Disposition
The court ordered as follows:
- Ms. J's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 17) is stricken as filed in error, because the applicable Federal Supplemental Rules of Civil Procedure no longer permit summary judgment motions in Social Security appeals.
- Ms. J's request for relief (Dkt. 18) is granted.
- The Commissioner's request for relief (Dkt. 20) is denied.
- The matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the order.
Read the full 14-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.