Richard B. v. Bisignano
- Shannon Elkins
- 0:25-cv-00928
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 16
In Richard B. v. Bisignano, Judge Elkins remanded a Social Security disability denial because the ALJ mischaracterized medical records and used circular reasoning to discount the claimant's reported limitations.
Individuals who have applied for Social Security disability insurance benefits and whose claims were denied by an ALJ, particularly those whose daily activity descriptions or medical records were characterized in ways they dispute, and whose cases may be affected by an ALJ's failure to adequately explain the reasoning behind an RFC determination.
What happened
Richard B. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security (Case No. 25-cv-928) involves Richard B., who applied for Social Security disability insurance benefits in August 2023, citing severe impairments including degenerative disc disease, a right ankle fracture, sleep apnea, and mental health conditions. After his application was denied at the agency level and by the Appeals Council, he brought suit in federal court, arguing that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) — the agency official who heard his case — made legal errors and that the denial was not supported by adequate evidence.
The ALJ had found that Richard B. retained the ability to perform medium-level work with certain restrictions, and identified three jobs he could still perform in the national economy. Richard B. challenged this finding on two grounds: first, that the ALJ failed to properly explain the quality and consistency of the medical opinions on which he relied; and second, that the ALJ mischaracterized the medical record when evaluating Richard B.'s reported symptoms and daily activities. The court found that the ALJ had adequately addressed the medical consultants' opinions, but identified serious problems with how the ALJ handled Richard B.'s subjective complaints and daily activities.
Judge Shannon G. Elkins granted Richard B.'s request for relief and denied the Commissioner's, remanding the case to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings. The court found that the ALJ's reasoning was circular — disbelieving Richard B.'s reported limitations while simultaneously using his reported activities to show he was not disabled — and that the ALJ had actually misread parts of the medical record, including misstating the date Richard B. claimed his disability began and mischaracterizing the meaning of a medical note about 'comfortable ambulation.' Because of these errors, the court concluded it could not determine whether substantial evidence supported the ALJ's decision.
The detailed version
- Richard B. v. Bisignano · No. 0:25-cv-00928
- Shannon G. Elkins
- Mar. 23, 2026
Background
Richard B. applied for Social Security disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act on August 9, 2023, alleging disability beginning January 17, 2023. His application was denied initially and on reconsideration. After a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) on February 3, 2025, the ALJ issued a written decision on February 12, 2025, finding that Richard B. was not disabled. The Appeals Council declined to review the decision, making it the Commissioner's final decision. Richard B. then filed suit in federal district court.
The ALJ's Five-Step Sequential Analysis
Social Security disability claims are evaluated under a five-step regulatory framework. At step one, the ALJ found that Richard B. had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since May 7, 2021. At step two, the ALJ identified several severe impairments: degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine with thoracic compression deformity; right ankle trimalleolar fracture, status-post open reduction and internal fixation (surgery to repair a broken bone with hardware); obstructive sleep apnea; and mental health conditions including depressive disorder, dysthymic disorder, anxiety disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder. At step three, the ALJ found that none of these impairments, alone or in combination, met or equaled a listed impairment that would automatically qualify Richard B. for benefits.
At step four, the ALJ assessed Richard B.'s residual functional capacity (RFC) — the most he can do despite his limitations. The ALJ found he could perform 'medium work' (generally involving lifting up to 50 pounds occasionally and 25 pounds frequently, and standing or walking up to 6 hours per 8-hour workday), subject to specific restrictions including only occasional use of foot controls and pushing/pulling with the right lower extremity, occasional climbing of ladders/ropes/scaffolds, no exposure to unprotected heights or moving mechanical parts, carrying out only simple instructions, dealing with only occasional changes in a routine work setting, and only occasional interaction with supervisors, coworkers, and the public. Using this RFC, the ALJ found Richard B. could not return to his past work, but at step five determined he could perform other jobs existing in significant numbers nationally: hand packager, machine packager, and package sealer machine tender.
Richard B.'s Arguments on Appeal
Richard B. raised two main arguments: (1) the ALJ failed to adequately evaluate the 'supportability' and 'consistency' of the state agency medical consultants' opinions, as required by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c; and (2) the ALJ's RFC assessment was not supported by substantial evidence because the ALJ mischaracterized evidence when evaluating Richard B.'s reported symptoms.
Issue 1: Evaluation of Medical Opinion Evidence
Under Social Security regulations, when evaluating medical opinions, the ALJ must explain how 'persuasive' each opinion is, with supportability (how well the opinion is backed by objective medical evidence) and consistency (how well it aligns with other record evidence) being the two most important factors. The ALJ must articulate how each factor was considered, though need not use those exact words.
Two state agency medical consultants provided opinions. Dr. Gregory Salmi, M.D., the initial-level reviewer, opined that Richard B. could perform medium work with limitations on repetitive use of foot controls. Dr. Stacy Holberg, D.O., the reconsideration-level reviewer, reached similar conclusions but added a minor limitation on overhead reaching to address shoulder pain.
The court found the ALJ adequately addressed both factors for both opinions. For Dr. Salmi, the ALJ stated his conclusions were 'supported with citations and a reasonable explanation' and 'consistent with the overall record, including the overall physical clinical findings and signs, the claimant's courses of and responses to physical treatments, and the claimant's daily and other activities.' For Dr. Holberg, the ALJ found her conclusions 'also supported with citations and a reasonable explanation' and 'mostly consistent with the overall record,' but declined to adopt her overhead reaching restriction because the record did not support it. The court concluded these explanations satisfied the regulatory requirements. Richard B.'s first argument was therefore rejected.
Issue 2: Mischaracterization of Evidence and Circular Reasoning
The court identified two significant problems with the ALJ's evaluation of Richard B.'s subjective complaints under Social Security Ruling (SSR) 16-3p, which requires ALJs to evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of a claimant's reported symptoms.
Circular Reasoning Regarding Daily Activities
The ALJ stated both that Richard B.'s reported limitations could not be 'objectively verified with any reasonable degree of certainty' and that his reported daily activities (such as tending to personal care, walking up to 10 minutes, preparing meals, doing some housework, caring for pet dogs, reading, and watching television) showed he was not as limited as he claimed. The court found this reasoning placed Richard B. in an impossible position: if he reported any activities, the ALJ used them against him; if he reported limited activities, the ALJ disbelieved him. Additionally, the court found the ALJ's conclusion that Richard B.'s activities were 'not nearly limited to the extent one would expect' implied those activities were equivalent to medium work — yet the ALJ himself found Richard B. could not perform his past medium work. The court noted that the Eighth Circuit has repeatedly held that light housework and similar activities provide little or no support for a finding that a claimant can perform full-time competitive work.
Factual Mischaracterizations in the Record
The court identified at least three specific instances where the ALJ misstated the medical record: - The ALJ described Richard B. as having 'comfortable ambulation' at a June 2024 appointment, but that medical note actually referred to the fit of his orthotics, not his unassisted walking ability. - The ALJ cited September 2023 appointments as showing 'no gait deficits,' but those records do not mention Richard B.'s gait at all. - The ALJ repeatedly stated that Richard B. alleged disability onset on May 7, 2021, when the records clearly show he alleged his disability began on January 17, 2023.
The court concluded that because the ALJ had not adequately explained the evidence he relied on, and had in fact mischaracterized portions of the record, the court could not determine whether substantial evidence — meaning the level of relevant evidence a reasonable mind would accept as adequate — supported the ALJ's RFC determination.
Disposition
Judge Elkins granted Richard B.'s request for relief, denied the Commissioner's request, and remanded the case to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings consistent with the order. The court expressly noted it was not reweighing the evidence or substituting its judgment for the ALJ's, but that the ALJ's errors prevented the court from conducting meaningful judicial review.
Read the full 16-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.