N. v. Bisignano
- Shannon Elkins
- 0:25-cv-03566
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 8
In Jerry N. v. Bisignano, Magistrate Judge Elkins denied Jerry N.'s appeal and upheld the Social Security Administration's denial of his disability benefits.
People who have been denied Social Security disability insurance benefits or supplemental security income and are seeking federal court review of that denial, particularly those challenging an ALJ's assessment of their functional capacity or the adequacy of the administrative record.
What happened
In Jerry N. v. Frank Bisignano, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, plaintiff Jerry N. sought federal court review of a Social Security Administration decision denying his applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. An administrative law judge (ALJ) had found that despite Jerry N.'s severe impairments — including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder — he retained enough functional ability to perform jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy, such as labeler, assembler, and hand packager.
Jerry N. raised several challenges to the ALJ's decision: that the ALJ should have called a medical expert to testify about his mental health, that the ALJ failed to appreciate the severity of his impairments, that the ALJ's assessment of his remaining functional abilities was not supported by sufficient evidence, and that the ALJ asked improper questions to the vocational expert who testified about available jobs. The Commissioner argued that the ALJ properly evaluated all the evidence and that the decision was supported by substantial evidence in the record.
Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins, to whom both parties consented for final disposition, rejected each of Jerry N.'s arguments. The court found that the ALJ was not required to call a medical expert when Jerry N. and his counsel could have done so themselves; that the ALJ did not minimize his impairments but specifically found them severe; that the ALJ's functional capacity assessment was supported by substantial evidence and did not improperly elevate daily activities over medical evidence; and that the ALJ's questions to the vocational expert properly reflected the supported functional capacity findings. Accordingly, the court denied Jerry N.'s request for relief, granted the Commissioner's request for relief, and dismissed the matter.
The detailed version
- N. v. Bisignano · No. 0:25-cv-03566
- Shannon G. Elkins
- Aug. 1, 2026
Background
Jerry N. applied for disability insurance benefits (DIB) under Title II and supplemental security income (SSI) under Title XVI of the Social Security Act on June 29, 2022, alleging a disability onset date of March 20, 2020. His claims were initially denied on April 3, 2023, and upon reconsideration on July 28, 2023. He requested review by an administrative law judge (ALJ), who held a hearing on April 26, 2024, at which Jerry N. appeared with counsel and an independent vocational expert (VE) testified.
The ALJ applied the standard five-step sequential evaluation process used in Social Security disability determinations. At step one, the ALJ found Jerry N. had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged onset date. At step two, the ALJ found four severe impairments: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). At step three, the ALJ found these impairments did not meet or equal a listed impairment that would automatically qualify him as disabled.
The ALJ then formulated a residual functional capacity (RFC) — a determination of the most a claimant can do despite his limitations — finding Jerry N. capable of light work with specific restrictions: lifting/carrying up to 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently; sitting for about six hours and standing/walking for six hours in an eight-hour workday; avoiding hazards such as unprotected heights, dangerous machinery, and open bodies of water; only occasional exposure to dust, odors, fumes, and atmospheric conditions; only occasional interaction with the public; and frequent (but not constant) interaction with coworkers.
At step four, the ALJ found Jerry N. could not perform any of his past relevant work. At step five, relying on the VE's testimony, the ALJ found he could perform the jobs of labeler (80,000 jobs nationally), assembler (180,000 jobs nationally), and hand packager (150,000 jobs nationally), and therefore concluded he was not disabled. The Appeals Council denied review on July 7, 2025, making the ALJ's decision the final agency decision. Jerry N. then filed this action in federal district court.
Standard of Review
The court's review was limited to determining whether the ALJ's decision complied with relevant legal standards and was supported by substantial evidence — defined as less than a preponderance but enough that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The court was required to affirm if the ALJ's findings fell within the "available zone of choice," even if the court might have reached a different conclusion.
Analysis
I. Full and Fair Record / Medical Expert Testimony
Jerry N. argued the ALJ failed to develop a full and fair record by not calling a medical expert to testify about how a loud noise environment affects a person with PTSD. The court acknowledged the ALJ's obligation to develop the record independently of the claimant's burden, but found no authority requiring the ALJ to secure such a witness when Jerry N. and his counsel could have called his treating physicians and did not. The court also found that testimony about the impact of loud noises on PTSD was not necessary given the extensive record already before the ALJ.
II. Severity of Impairments
Jerry N. argued the ALJ minimized or failed to understand his severe impairments. The court found this argument unpersuasive, noting that the ALJ specifically found his impairments to be severe at step two, weighed both his subjective testimony and the underlying medical records, and crafted the RFC to accommodate his diagnoses. The court further found, on independent record review, that the ALJ relied heavily on medical records and did not substitute her own opinion for those of the medical providers.
III. RFC Determination
Jerry N. contended the RFC was not supported by substantial evidence because the ALJ improperly credited his ability to perform daily tasks — cooking, driving, shopping, and caring for pets — over his severe diagnoses and limitations. The court disagreed, finding the ALJ considered his subjective complaints and used his daily activities as one factor in assessing his functional capacity without basing the decision solely on those activities or elevating them over his medical evidence and subjective complaints.
IV. Hypothetical Questions to the Vocational Expert
Jerry N. argued that because the RFC was not supported by substantial evidence, the ALJ's hypothetical questions to the VE were "improbable" and the VE's responses were unhelpful. Having already found the RFC was supported by substantial evidence, the court reviewed the hearing transcript and found the ALJ's questions to the VE were grounded in the RFC determination, satisfying the legal requirement that hypothetical questions incorporate all substantially supported impairments and their concrete consequences.
Disposition
Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins ordered: (1) Jerry N.'s request for relief is denied; (2) the Commissioner's request for relief is granted; and (3) the matter is dismissed. Judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.