Charity S. v. Bisignano
- Elizabeth Cowan Wright
- 0:25-cv-02629
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Charity S. v. Bisignano, Judge Wright granted the plaintiff's request to reverse and remand a Social Security disability benefits denial for further review.
People who have been denied Social Security disability benefits based on mental health conditions, particularly where the Administrative Law Judge's analysis of mental health criteria or treating provider opinions may have been inadequate.
What happened
In Charity S. v. Bisignano (Case No. 25-cv-02629), a plaintiff identified only as Charity S. challenged the Social Security Commissioner's denial of her disability benefits. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) had previously found that she did not meet certain mental health disability criteria and had discounted the opinions of her treating psychologist regarding her dissociation and memory problems. Charity S. asked the federal court to reverse that denial and send the case back for a new review; the Commissioner asked the court to uphold the denial.
The court found several problems with the ALJ's decision. First, the ALJ's analysis of so-called 'paragraph C' mental health criteria — which can qualify a person as disabled if they struggle to adapt to daily life — was too thin and failed to properly account for the fact that mental illness symptoms can vary significantly over time. Second, the ALJ discounted the opinions of Charity S.'s treating psychologist, Dr. Cheryl Sybesma Van Noord, about her dissociation and memory impairments, partly by reasoning that Charity S. showed 'resourcefulness' in obtaining community support services — but the court found that simply receiving those services is not, by itself, evidence of resourcefulness or organizational ability. Third, the ALJ's overall assessment of Charity S.'s own statements about her symptoms and her functional limitations needed to be reconsidered in light of these errors.
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright granted Charity S.'s request to reverse the Commissioner's denial of benefits and remand the case — meaning it is sent back to the Social Security Administration for a new review following specific instructions. On remand, the Commissioner must re-examine the paragraph C criteria, reconsider Dr. Van Noord's opinions with proper attention to the evidence of dissociation and memory problems in the record, reassess Charity S.'s own reported symptoms, and reconsider her overall functional capacity. The Commissioner's request to affirm the denial was denied.
The detailed version
- Charity S. v. Bisignano · No. 0:25-cv-02629
- Elizabeth Cowan Wright
- May 29, 2026
Background
This is a Social Security disability appeal in which the plaintiff, identified only as Charity S., sought reversal of the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of her disability benefits. The case came before the court on cross-briefs: Charity S. sought reversal and remand for further administrative proceedings (Dkt. 15), and the Commissioner (Frank Bisignano) sought affirmance of the denial (Dkt. 19). The court announced its decision on the record on May 29, 2026.
Issues Presented
The court identified four areas requiring correction on remand:
1. Paragraph C Mental Health Criteria
In Social Security disability law, certain mental health listings (called 'paragraph C criteria') provide an alternative path to disability status, including for claimants with only 'marginal adjustment' — meaning a minimal ability to adapt to everyday demands or changes outside their routine. See 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, § 12.00(G)(2)(c). The ALJ, at page 6 of his opinion (R. 29), found no evidence of marginal adjustment or a need for treatment in a highly structured setting, and thus concluded the paragraph C criteria were not satisfied. The court found this analysis insufficient, citing the requirement to consider all record evidence on marginal adjustment and the variable nature of mental illness symptoms. The court cited Mabry v. Colvin, 815 F.3d 386, 392 (8th Cir. 2016), for the principle that people with mental illness may have periods of relatively normal functioning, causing their overall level of functioning to vary significantly over time. The ALJ's explanation was found inadequate to permit meaningful judicial review.
2. Treating Psychologist's Opinions on Dissociation and Memory
The ALJ discounted the opinions of Charity S.'s treating psychologist, Dr. Cheryl Sybesma Van Noord, PhD, regarding dissociation and memory impairments. The court found that the ALJ did not adequately account for record evidence of dissociation (citing, e.g., R. 496, R. 511, R. 918, R. 921, R. 925, R. 1020, R. 2620, R. 2606-07, R. 2453) and memory impairment (citing, e.g., R. 568-619, R. 1928-2117). The court also took issue with the ALJ's reasoning that Charity S.'s receipt of multiple community support services — including Adult Rehabilitative Mental Health Services, Nice Rooms Associate peer support services, Individualized Home Supports services, and Community Access for Disability Inclusion services — showed she had 'persistence,' 'organizational acumen,' and the 'ability to marshal resources.' The court held that the mere fact of receiving those services cannot, standing alone, support those conclusions. On remand, if the Commissioner continues to rely on that community assistance evidence to discount Dr. Van Noord's opinions, the Commissioner must identify affirmative evidence supporting those characterizations beyond simply the fact that Charity S. receives the services.
3. Plaintiff's Subjective Symptom Statements
The ALJ's assessment of Charity S.'s own statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of her mental health symptoms must be revisited in light of the errors identified in paragraphs (a) and (b) above and in view of the record as a whole.
4. Residual Functional Capacity (RFC)
The Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) is the administrative determination of the most a claimant can still do despite her limitations. The court found the RFC must also be reconsidered. Specifically, the ALJ had found persuasive (R. 34) both state agency administrative findings limiting Charity S. to 1-2 step tasks and superficial interactions and Dr. Van Noord's opinion limiting her to superficial interactions — yet these limitations did not appear to be included in the RFC. On remand, the Commissioner must address whether those limitations should be included in the RFC and, if not, explain the reasoning.
Disposition
Judge Wright granted Charity S.'s brief (Dkt. 15) requesting reversal and remand with detailed instructions to the Commissioner, and denied the Commissioner's brief (Dkt. 19) seeking affirmance. The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly. The case is remanded to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings consistent with the court's instructions.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.