Shari B. v. Bisignano
- Shannon Elkins
- 0:24-cv-03901
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 15
In Shari B. v. Bisignano, Magistrate Judge Elkins upheld the Social Security Administration's denial of disability benefits, finding the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence.
People who have applied for Social Security disability insurance benefits and had their claims denied, particularly those whose claimed impairments were found not to be medically determinable, or whose treating physician's opinion was found unpersuasive by an ALJ. This ruling illustrates the limited scope of federal court review of Social Security decisions.
What happened
In Shari B. v. Frank Bisignano, Acting Commissioner of Social Security (Case No. 24-cv-3901), Shari B. challenged the Social Security Administration's decision denying her application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. She alleged disability beginning July 25, 2019, due to conditions including seronegative rheumatoid arthritis, left knee disorder with osteoarthritis, a lumbar spine disorder, and claimed cyclical vomiting. After her initial denial, a remand from federal court, and a second hearing before a different Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in 2024, the ALJ again found her not disabled, determining she could perform certain jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy.
Shari B. raised three main challenges: (1) the ALJ should have considered her cyclical vomiting when assessing her ability to work; (2) the ALJ's finding that she could sit six hours per day was unsupported; and (3) the ALJ's finding that she could stand or walk four hours per day after July 18, 2023 was unsupported. On the vomiting issue, the ALJ had found it was not a medically determinable impairment because there was no objective medical evidence from an acceptable medical source establishing it as such — and the court agreed that ALJs are not required to include non-medically determinable impairments in their work-capacity assessments. On the sitting and standing issues, the court found that Shari B. was essentially asking it to reweigh the evidence differently than the ALJ did, which courts are not permitted to do under the applicable standard of review.
Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins denied Shari B.'s request for relief and granted the Commissioner's request for relief. The court applied the 'substantial evidence' standard — meaning it could only reverse the ALJ if the decision lacked enough evidence that a reasonable mind would accept it as adequate — and concluded the ALJ's findings on all three disputed issues met that standard. The court found the ALJ had adequate reasons for discounting the treating rheumatologist's opinion, for finding Shari B.'s testimony inconsistent with objective medical evidence, and for concluding that improvement in her foot condition after surgery justified an expanded standing capacity in the later period.
The detailed version
- Shari B. v. Bisignano · No. 0:24-cv-03901
- Shannon G. Elkins
- Feb. 23, 2026
Background
Shari B. applied for disability insurance benefits (DIB) under Title II of the Social Security Act on December 16, 2019, alleging disability beginning July 25, 2019. Her application was denied initially and on reconsideration. After a hearing, the first Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) — a federal official who conducts hearings and decides Social Security claims — found her not disabled. The United States District Court remanded (sent back) the case, and the Social Security Appeals Council directed a new ALJ to conduct another hearing on remand.
On April 30, 2024, a second ALJ held a hearing. On June 14, 2024, the ALJ issued a decision again finding Shari B. not disabled, following the Social Security Administration's five-step sequential evaluation process (a standard framework used to determine whether a claimant qualifies for disability benefits).
ALJ's Five-Step Findings
- Step 1: Shari B. had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since July 2019. - Step 2: She had severe impairments — seronegative rheumatoid arthritis, left knee disorder with osteoarthritis and degenerative meniscus tear, and a lumbar spine disorder — as well as various non-severe impairments. Cyclical vomiting was found not to be a medically determinable impairment at all. - Step 3: Her impairments did not meet or equal the severity of any listed impairment that would automatically qualify her as disabled. - Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) — the most a claimant can still do despite limitations — was assessed in two periods: - July 25, 2019 through July 17, 2023: Light work with the ability to lift 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently, stand/walk up to 2 hours per 8-hour workday, sit up to 6 hours per 8-hour workday, with other postural and hazard limitations. - July 18, 2023 onward: Stand/walk expanded to up to 4 hours per 8-hour workday, with no exposure to dangerous machinery or heights. - Step 4: She could not perform her past relevant work. - Step 5: Based on vocational expert testimony, jobs existed in significant numbers in the national economy that she could perform; therefore she was not disabled.
The Appeals Council declined to review the ALJ's decision, making it the Commissioner's final decision. Shari B. then filed suit in federal court on October 14, 2024.
Standard of Review
The court's review was limited. Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the court could only determine whether the ALJ's decision complied with relevant legal standards and was supported by substantial evidence — defined as less than a preponderance of evidence, but enough that a reasonable mind might accept it as adequate. The court could not substitute its own judgment for the ALJ's, and could not reverse merely because some evidence supported a contrary conclusion.
Issues and Analysis
Issue 1: Cyclical Vomiting
Shari B. argued the ALJ should have incorporated her cyclical vomiting complaints into the RFC analysis. The court rejected this argument.
Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1521, an impairment must be established by objective medical evidence (clinical signs, laboratory findings, or both) from an acceptable medical source. A claimant's own statements about symptoms, a diagnosis alone, or a medical opinion alone are not sufficient. The burden was on Shari B. to prove her vomiting was a medically determinable impairment.
The ALJ found no objective clinical signs or laboratory results documenting a condition causing cyclical vomiting, and further found that even assuming such a condition existed, there was no evidence it significantly affected her ability to work for at least 12 continuous months. Because ALJs are not required to consider non-medically determinable impairments in formulating an RFC, the ALJ properly excluded it.
Shari B. pointed to: (1) her own testimony; (2) a January 2024 endoscopy suggesting the 'possibility of mild inflammatory bowel disease'; and (3) three pages of the 2,075-page record mentioning vomiting without clinical signs or lab findings. The court found these insufficient — subjective testimony cannot establish a medically determinable impairment, and a laboratory finding merely suggesting the possibility of a different condition (inflammatory bowel disease) did not establish cyclical vomiting as a medically determinable impairment.
Issue 2: Ability to Sit (Six Hours Per Day)
Shari B. argued the six-hour sitting limitation in her RFC was not supported by substantial evidence, pointing to the opinion of her treating rheumatologist, Dr. Schiebe, who opined she could sit only one hour in an eight-hour period, and to her own testimony.
The court found this argument unpersuasive for two reasons:
First, the ALJ had evaluated Dr. Schiebe's opinion and found it unpersuasive due to limited examination opportunities and inconsistencies with objective medical evidence and Dr. Schiebe's own treatment notes. The court's role was only to review whether the ALJ adequately analyzed persuasiveness, not to agree or disagree with the ALJ's weighing of the evidence. Shari B. did not argue the ALJ applied an incorrect legal standard in assessing Dr. Schiebe's opinion; she only argued the result should have been different — which amounts to an invitation to reweigh evidence, something the court cannot do.
Second, the ALJ had considered Shari B.'s testimony but found it inconsistent with objective medical evidence and her reported daily activities. Again, Shari B. pointed to favorable portions of testimony and asked the court to reach a different conclusion, which is beyond the court's role.
Issue 3: Change in RFC After July 18, 2023 (Standing/Walking Four Hours)
Shari B. argued the expanded standing/walking capacity after July 18, 2023 was not supported by substantial evidence, contending the ALJ relied solely on her post-surgery foot condition improvement and that her testimony contradicted any improvement.
The ALJ's reasoning was that Shari B.'s rheumatoid arthritis, lumbar spine disorder, and left knee disorder had not significantly changed after July 18, 2023, but her foot condition had improved following surgery — supported by an appointment at which she reported doing well, wearing normal footwear, helping at a daycare, and having no residual pain. Because the foot condition no longer contributed to her standing limitation, the ALJ determined she could stand/walk up to four hours.
The court found the two pages of records Shari B. cited (regarding SI joint and lumbar spine pain) did not demonstrate significant changes to those conditions, and did not undermine the ALJ's finding of foot improvement. Once again, Shari B. pointed to evidence supporting her position without arguing the record as a whole lacked substantial evidence — which is the correct legal standard. The court declined to reweigh the evidence.
Disposition
The court denied Shari B.'s request for relief and granted the Commissioner's request for relief. Judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly.
Read the full 15-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.