Lori H-L v. Bisignano
- Bullard
- 0:25-cv-01045
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 23
In Lori H-L. v. Bisignano, Magistrate Judge Bullard remanded a Social Security disability case because the ALJ failed to properly analyze the claimant's somatic symptom disorder and misstated her limited activities as evidence of work capacity.
People who have applied for Social Security disability insurance benefits and whose claims involve somatic symptom disorder or chronic migraines, particularly where an ALJ has discounted subjective symptom reports by relying on limited or modified daily activities without adequately analyzing how the underlying disorder affects symptom perception.
What happened
In Lori H-L. v. Bisignano (No. 25-cv-1045-EMB), Lori H-L. sought court review of a Social Security Administration decision denying her disability insurance benefits. She alleged disability from a combination of physical and mental conditions — including complex regional pain syndrome, fibromyalgia, chronic migraines, post-traumatic stress disorder, and somatic symptom disorder (a condition where a person genuinely experiences physical symptoms at a greater severity than medical tests can explain) — with an onset date of July 31, 2019. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found she was not disabled after completing the required five-step evaluation process, concluding she could perform certain light jobs available in the national economy.
Lori H-L. challenged the ALJ's decision on several grounds. Most critically, she argued the ALJ failed to properly account for her somatic symptom disorder when assessing her ability to work, and mischaracterized her limited, heavily assisted daily activities — such as gardening with neighbor help, modified hunting trips, and holiday socializing — as evidence she could sustain full-time employment. She also argued the ALJ improperly analyzed whether her chronic migraines were severe enough to automatically qualify her as disabled under a specific regulatory listing. The court agreed that the ALJ glossed over how her somatic symptom disorder might explain the gap between her reported symptoms and objective medical findings, and that the ALJ relied on infrequent, modified, and speculative activities while ignoring her more severe limitations, such as showering only once every two weeks due to pain, inability to regularly prepare food, and needing to lie in a dark room for hours.
Magistrate Judge Bullard granted Lori H-L.'s request for relief, denied the Commissioner's opposition, and remanded the case — meaning it was sent back — to the Social Security Administration for further review consistent with the court's order. On remand, the ALJ must reassess how the claimant's somatic symptom disorder affects her reported symptoms, properly evaluate her daily activities under the applicable Social Security rules, and reconsider whether her migraines are severe enough to meet the relevant listing. The court declined to rule on her argument about a potential closed period of disability, instead directing the ALJ to consider that question on remand as well.
The detailed version
- Lori H-L v. Bisignano · No. 0:25-cv-01045
- Bullard
- Mar. 31, 2026
Background
Plaintiff Lori H-L. applied for Social Security disability insurance benefits on September 24, 2021, alleging disability with an onset date of July 31,
- The Social Security Administration (SSA) denied her application on July 1, 2022, and denied it again on reconsideration on March 1,
- After a remote hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) on October 25, 2023, the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision on December 15,
- The Social Security Appeals Council denied review, making the ALJ's decision final. Plaintiff then sought judicial review in federal district court under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
The ALJ's Five-Step Analysis
The ALJ applied the standard five-step sequential evaluation under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520:
- Step 1: The ALJ found Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since July 31, 2019. - Step 2: The ALJ found numerous severe impairments, including right shoulder injury with rotator cuff tear, complex regional pain syndrome of the right upper extremity, resting tremor, lumbar degenerative disc disease, post-concussive syndrome, chronic migraines, chronic pain syndrome, fibromyalgia, generalized anxiety disorder, mood disorder, adjustment disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and somatic symptom disorder. - Step 3: The ALJ found Plaintiff's impairments did not meet or medically equal any listed impairment, including Listing 11.02 (the most analogous listing for primary headache disorders under SSR 19-4P). - Residual Functional Capacity (RFC): Before step four, the ALJ assessed Plaintiff's RFC — the most she can do despite her limitations — and concluded she could perform light work with various physical and mental restrictions. - Step 4: The ALJ found Plaintiff could not perform any past relevant work. - Step 5: The ALJ found Plaintiff could perform other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy, including merchandise marker, inspector and hand packager, and production assembler, and therefore concluded she was not disabled.
Issues on Review
Plaintiff raised four arguments: (1) the ALJ failed to build a logical bridge between the evidence and the RFC with respect to her somatic symptom disorder; (2) the ALJ failed to properly evaluate her somatic symptom disorder under Social Security Ruling (SSR) 16-3p, which governs how an ALJ must assess a claimant's subjective symptom statements; (3) the ALJ erred in concluding her migraines did not equal Listing 11.02 at step three; and (4) the ALJ failed to consider whether she was entitled to a closed period of disability (a finite period during which a claimant qualifies as disabled even if not currently disabled).
RFC and Somatic Symptom Disorder
Somatic symptom disorder is a condition in which a person genuinely believes she is experiencing physical symptoms at a greater level of severity than clinical evidence can support. Under Nowling v. Colvin, 813 F.3d 1110 (8th Cir. 2016), when an ALJ accepts that a claimant has a somatoform disorder but still finds her at least partially not credible, the ALJ must set forth the consistency determination with sufficient detail to allow a reviewing court to understand which of the claimant's statements were credited and which were not, and why.
The court found the ALJ made only passing references to Plaintiff's somatic symptom disorder despite classifying it as a severe impairment, and never analyzed how it might cause or explain the mismatch between her reported symptoms and the objective medical findings. The ALJ noted that Plaintiff's treatment and symptom reports were "out of proportion" to her subjective complaints — but that disproportion is the hallmark of somatic symptom disorder, and the ALJ provided no analysis of what, if any, weight that disorder's impact should be given.
The ALJ discredited Plaintiff's subjective complaints primarily by citing her daily activities. The court found the ALJ mischaracterized these activities:
- References to gardening largely described future plans or therapeutic activities performed with neighbor or family assistance, not independent, sustained activity. - References to farm work and side income were speculative plans with no record evidence of actual performance. - References to a note that Plaintiff was "very busy over the holidays" lacked any elaboration about what that meant, and Plaintiff had testified she missed holidays, funerals, and weddings. - Hunting was documented as a modified activity rather than normal participation. - References to driving acknowledged Plaintiff still could not drive on certain days. - A note stating Plaintiff was "independent" with her home exercise program appeared in a record that also noted her complex regional pain syndrome was still limiting her progress.
The court agreed with Plaintiff that the ALJ "mischaracterized minimal, heavily accommodated activities as evidence of work capacity." The court also found the ALJ ignored Plaintiff's own testimony about severe limitations — including showering only once every two weeks because of extreme pain, a significant weight loss from roughly 195 pounds to 120 pounds due to difficulty preparing food, and needing to spend several hours at a time lying in a dark room — without adequately addressing those limitations or linking identified inconsistencies to specific subjective statements.
Listing 11.02 (Step Three)
Because there is no specific listing for migraines or headaches, SSR 19-4P directs ALJs to compare the claimant's headache disorder to Listing 11.02 (epilepsy) — not to determine whether the claimant literally meets the seizure criteria, but whether her headache disorder is equal in severity and duration to those criteria. The relevant subparts are 11.02B (events at least once a week for at least three consecutive months despite treatment) and 11.02D (events at least once every two weeks for at least three consecutive months despite treatment, plus marked limitation in at least one area of functioning).
The ALJ concluded Plaintiff's headaches did not reach listing-level frequency or cause listing-level interference with functioning. However, the court noted: (1) the ALJ appeared to consider whether Plaintiff's headaches satisfied the literal seizure criteria of Listing 11.02 rather than whether they equaled those criteria; (2) the analysis was remanded anyway because it appeared to rely on the same RFC formulation and the same credibility assessment of Plaintiff's subjective symptom reports; and (3) multiple treating providers — including neurologist Dr. Ana Patricia Groeschel, who recorded daily headaches spiking to migraines more than 15 days per month with some lasting several days, and Dr. Michael Jordan, who noted four to six migraine headaches per week — documented headache frequency that could satisfy the equivalence standard if Plaintiff's subjective reports were credited on remand.
The court also noted that the ALJ discounted the opinion of Dr. Jane Bailey, M.D. regarding Plaintiff's visual symptoms (including light sensitivity and tunnel vision) because Plaintiff was not in ongoing vision therapy — but the same provider note the ALJ relied on showed Plaintiff intended to resume appointments and had recently experienced worsening tunnel vision.
Closed Period of Disability
The court declined to reach Plaintiff's argument about a potential closed period of disability on the existing record, but directed the ALJ to consider on remand whether there was any 12-month period during which Plaintiff was entitled to benefits.
Disposition
Magistrate Judge Bullard granted Plaintiff's request for relief, denied the Commissioner's opposition, 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. Judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly.
Read the full 23-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.