Victoria H. v. Bisignano
- Elizabeth Wright
- 0:25-cv-00847
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Victoria H. v. Bisignano, Judge Bryan granted Victoria H.'s motion to reverse the Social Security Commissioner's denial of disability insurance benefits.
People who have applied for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits and been denied by the agency, particularly those whose cases are before the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.
What happened
In Victoria H. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security (Case No. 25-CV-00847), Victoria H. sued after the Social Security Administration denied her application for Title II Disability Insurance Benefits — the federal program providing benefits to workers who become disabled. She asked the federal court to reverse that denial and award her benefits directly.
A magistrate judge (a lower-level federal judicial officer who assists district court judges) issued a Report and Recommendation on January 30, 2026, recommending that the court grant Victoria H.'s request and deny the Commissioner's request to uphold the denial and dismiss the case. Neither side objected to the recommendation within the allowed time period, so the district court reviewed it only for obvious errors.
Finding no obvious errors, Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation in full on February 17, 2026. Victoria H.'s motion was granted, the Commissioner's motion was denied, and the court dismissed the action without prejudice. Judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly.
The detailed version
- Victoria H. v. Bisignano · No. 0:25-cv-00847
- Elizabeth Wright
- Feb. 17, 2026
Background
Plaintiff Victoria H. brought this action against Frank Bisignano in his capacity as Commissioner of Social Security, challenging the agency's decision to deny her Title II Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) — a federal benefits program for disabled workers who have sufficient work history. She was represented by James H. Greeman of Greeman Toomey in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The Commissioner was represented by attorneys from the Social Security Administration's Office of the General Counsel.
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on January 30, 2026. The R&R recommended: - Granting Victoria H.'s request to reverse the Commissioner's decision denying her DIB and to award benefits; and - Denying the Commissioner's request to affirm the denial of benefits and dismiss the action.
Neither party filed objections to the R&R within the time permitted under District of Minnesota Local Rule 72.2(b)(1).
Standard of Review
Because no timely objections were filed, Judge Bryan reviewed the R&R only for clear error, consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and the Eighth Circuit's standard articulated in Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996). This is a deferential standard — it does not involve a fresh review of the underlying merits.
Ruling
Finding no clear error, Judge Bryan adopted the R&R in full. The court:
- Adopted the R&R (Doc. No. 17);
- Granted Victoria H.'s motion (Doc. No. 9) and denied the Commissioner's motion (Doc. No. 14); and
- Dismissed the action without prejudice.
Judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly.
Notes on the Opinion
The opinion does not detail the underlying factual or medical record, the specific grounds on which the Commissioner denied benefits, or the specific legal basis on which the magistrate judge recommended reversal. Those findings are contained in the R&R itself (Doc. No. 17), which is not reproduced here. The dismissal without prejudice means the action is closed in this form, but the court did not bar any future filings — though the practical effect in the context of a Social Security appeal (where benefits are being awarded) may differ from a typical dismissal scenario.
The court used only Victoria H.'s first name and last initial pursuant to the District of Minnesota's privacy policy for Social Security matters.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.