James P. v. Bisignano
- Shannon Elkins
- 0:25-cv-01078
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 15
In James P. v. Bisignano, Judge Elkins granted the plaintiff's request for relief and remanded his Social Security disability benefits denial because the ALJ failed to resolve a conflict between vocational expert testimony and job requirements, and the Appeals Council failed to address new rebuttal evidence.
People who have been denied Social Security disability insurance benefits by an ALJ and have submitted new vocational evidence to the Appeals Council. The ruling also affects claimants whose cases involve a conflict between a vocational expert's testimony and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles regarding job requirements.
What happened
In James P. v. Bisignano (No. 25-cv-1078), James P. applied for Social Security disability insurance benefits, alleging disability beginning January 1, 2022. The Social Security Administration denied his claim, and an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found he was not disabled, concluding he could perform his past work as a school bus driver and, alternatively, other jobs in the national economy. James P. appealed, arguing the ALJ mishandled a conflict between what the vocational expert said and what the official job dictionary requires, and that the Appeals Council ignored new evidence he submitted to challenge the ALJ's findings.
The court identified two key errors. First, the ALJ's own decision acknowledged that the school bus driver job in the official Dictionary of Occupational Titles requires 'constant' reaching and handling, but the ALJ had limited James P. to only 'frequent' reaching and handling — a direct conflict. Under Social Security rules, when a vocational expert's testimony conflicts with the job dictionary, the ALJ must ask about the conflict on the record and get a reasonable explanation before relying on that testimony. The ALJ never did this; he only asked at the end of the hearing whether the testimony was consistent with the dictionary, which was insufficient. Second, James P. submitted a vocational expert report by Karen Starr to the Appeals Council that directly contradicted the vocational expert's testimony about which jobs James P. could perform. The court found this report was new, relevant evidence that presented a real chance of changing the outcome, but it could not determine whether the Appeals Council ever actually reviewed it, since the report was not included in the administrative record and the Appeals Council's denial notice did not mention it.
Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins granted James P.'s request for relief, denied the Commissioner's request for relief, and remanded the case to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings. On remand, the ALJ must properly address the conflict between the vocational expert's testimony and the job dictionary at step four, and must also consider the Starr vocational report.
The detailed version
- James P. v. Bisignano · No. 0:25-cv-01078
- Shannon G. Elkins
- Feb. 26, 2026
Background
James P. applied for Social Security disability insurance benefits (DIB) under Title II of the Social Security Act on February 15, 2022, alleging disability beginning January 1, 2022. His claim was denied initially and on reconsideration. After a hearing on January 9, 2024, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found James P. was not disabled.
The ALJ's decision followed the standard five-step sequential evaluation process used in Social Security disability determinations. At step two, the ALJ found James P. had severe impairments of osteoarthritis of the right knee and obesity. At step three, the ALJ found these impairments did not meet or equal a listed impairment. Before step four, the ALJ determined James P.'s residual functional capacity (RFC) — meaning the most he could still do despite his limitations — to perform medium work with, among other restrictions, only 'frequent' (not 'constant') reaching, handling, fingering, and feeling bilaterally.
At step four, the ALJ relied on vocational expert (VE) Diamond Warren's testimony to conclude James P. could return to his past work as a school bus driver. At step five — an alternative finding — the ALJ found James P. could also perform other jobs existing in significant numbers nationally: hospital cleaner (55,000 jobs), order picker (10,000 jobs), and counter supply worker (35,000 jobs).
James P. sought review from the Appeals Council (AC), submitting a vocational report by Karen Starr (the Starr Report), which contradicted the VE's testimony as to all three step-five jobs. The AC denied review on January 24, 2025, without specifically mentioning the Starr Report. The Starr Report was not included in the administrative record. James P. then filed this federal court action.
The Two Issues on Review
Issue 1: ALJ's Failure to Resolve Conflict Between VE Testimony and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT)
The ALJ limited James P. to 'frequent' reaching and handling. However, the ALJ's own decision noted that the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) — the standard reference for job requirements — requires 'constant' reaching and handling for a school bus driver. This created a direct conflict between the VE's testimony and the DOT.
Social Security Ruling 00-4p (SSR 00-4p), which applied here because the ALJ's decision predated the ruling's replacement on January 6, 2025, required the ALJ to (1) inquire on the record about such conflicts, (2) obtain a reasonable explanation, and (3) explain in the decision how the conflict was resolved.
The court found the ALJ did not comply. The ALJ only asked the VE at the end of the hearing whether her testimony was consistent with the DOT — a general question that does not address the specific conflict. The ALJ's written decision also attributed to the VE a statement that her answers were based on her education and experience, but the court noted that the VE never actually said this during the hearing. Without a proper inquiry and reasonable explanation, the ALJ could not rely on the VE's testimony, and the default under SSR 00-4p is the DOT's requirements. Because the DOT requires 'constant' reaching and handling for the school bus driver job — exceeding James P.'s RFC limitation of 'frequent' — the step four finding was flawed.
Issue 2: Appeals Council's Failure to Address the Starr Report
James P. submitted the Starr Report to the AC along with his request for review. The AC must review a case when it receives additional evidence that is: (1) new, (2) material, (3) relates to the period on or before the ALJ's hearing decision, and (4) presents a reasonable probability of changing the outcome. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.970(a)(5).
The court found the Starr Report satisfied all four criteria. It was written after the hearing, was not duplicative of evidence already in the record, was relevant to James P.'s functional abilities during the relevant period, and — because the ALJ relied exclusively on the VE's testimony for the step five jobs and the Starr Report directly contradicted that testimony for all three identified jobs — it presented a reasonable probability of a different outcome.
However, the court could not determine whether the AC actually reviewed the Starr Report. The AC's denial notice said only that it 'considered the reasons' submitted by James P. and found them insufficient. The AC exhibited James P.'s three-page request for review but not the Starr Report, and the Starr Report was not part of the administrative record. Under Eighth Circuit precedent, when it is unclear whether the AC considered required new evidence, remand is warranted — the court need not determine that the AC definitely ignored the evidence.
Disposition
Magistrate Judge Elkins granted James P.'s request for relief (Docket 8), denied the Commissioner's request for relief (Docket 14), and remanded the case to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings. On remand, the ALJ is directed to (1) reconsider James P.'s ability to perform past relevant work at step four in compliance with SSR 00-4p, and (2) consider the Starr Report.
Notes on the Opinion
The opinion contains one apparent internal inconsistency: it refers at one point to 'Ms. B' instead of Mr. P when describing the ALJ's finding of non-disability. The court treats this as a typographical error. The opinion also notes — without deciding — that the DOT has not been updated since 1991, acknowledging its limitations but finding resolution of that issue unnecessary here.
Read the full 15-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.