Bisignano v. Bisignano
- Shannon Elkins
- 0:25-cv-02761
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 15
In Christopher J. v. Bisignano, Judge Elkins denied plaintiff's challenge to the Social Security Administration's denial of disability benefits, finding the ALJ's decision supported by substantial evidence.
People who have applied for Social Security disability insurance benefits and whose claims were denied by an ALJ; the ruling illustrates the deferential standard courts apply when reviewing such denials and the requirements ALJs must meet when evaluating medical opinions and subjective symptoms.
What happened
In Christopher J. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security, plaintiff Christopher J. applied for disability insurance benefits and was denied by a Social Security Administration Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) — the agency official who decides disability claims — after a hearing held on July 9, 2024. The ALJ found that although Christopher J. has several severe impairments, including spinal conditions, right shoulder disease, migraines, foot and ankle fracture, knee injury, and obesity, he retained the ability to perform certain light-duty jobs available in significant numbers in the national economy. Christopher J. then asked a federal court to reverse that denial.
Christopher J. raised three main arguments: that the ALJ improperly evaluated the medical opinion of Nurse Jessica Stageberg, that the ALJ mishandled his self-reported symptoms, and that the ALJ failed to build a sufficient logical connection between the medical evidence and the finding about what work he could still do. The court examined each argument under the applicable standard, which requires upholding the ALJ's decision if it is supported by 'substantial evidence' — meaning enough relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept it as adequate — and is free from legal error.
United States Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins denied Christopher J.'s request for relief, granted the Commissioner's request for relief, and dismissed the matter. The court found that the ALJ adequately evaluated Nurse Stageberg's opinion as to both its support in the evidence and its consistency with other evidence, properly assessed Christopher J.'s subjective symptoms including his medications, and that substantial evidence in the record — including treatment records showing pain management was 'mostly effective' and self-reports of daily activities — supported the ALJ's decision.
The detailed version
- Bisignano v. Bisignano · No. 0:25-cv-02761
- Shannon G. Elkins
- Aug. 7, 2026
Background
Christopher J. (identified by first name and last initial only per court policy) applied for Social Security disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act on January 3, 2023. His application was denied initially and on reconsideration. An ALJ (Administrative Law Judge — the agency official who conducts hearings and decides disability claims) held a hearing on July 9, 2024, at which Christopher J. amended his alleged disability onset date to January 4, 2024. On August 7, 2024, the ALJ issued a decision finding Christopher J. was not disabled. The Social Security Appeals Council declined to review the ALJ's decision. Christopher J. filed his complaint in federal district court on July 2, 2025.
ALJ's Findings
The ALJ determined that Christopher J. had the following severe impairments: lumbar spinal impairment (status post lumbar laminectomy and discectomy in October 2023, with postlaminectomy syndrome); cervical spinal impairment (status post C4-C6 fusion in 2018); right shoulder degenerative joint disease and tendinitis with partial-thickness supraspinatus tear (status post arthroscopic surgery in April 2024); migraine headaches; left foot and ankle fracture with residual symptoms/midfoot arthritis (status post open reduction internal fixation surgery); left knee meniscus tear; and obesity.
At step three of the sequential evaluation, the ALJ found that these impairments did not meet or medically equal any listed impairment in the governing regulations. At step four, the ALJ determined Christopher J.'s residual functional capacity (RFC) — the most work he can do despite his limitations — allowed him to perform light work with specific restrictions: able to stand and/or walk 4 out of 8 hours; can occasionally stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl; should never climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; can occasionally climb ramps and stairs; should not be exposed to environmental hazards; should never balance (as that term is defined by the Selected Characteristics of Occupations); can frequently reach overhead bilaterally; can frequently reach in all other directions including laterally with the dominant right upper extremity; and requires the ability to use a cane for prolonged ambulation and walking on uneven terrain.
The ALJ found Christopher J. could not perform any past relevant work but concluded at step five that he could perform jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy, including small parts assembler, merchandise marker, and office helper.
Legal Standard
Federal courts uphold the Commissioner's denial of a disability claim if substantial evidence supports the ALJ's findings and the decision is not based on legal error. Substantial evidence means "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Legal error is reviewed without deference (de novo), while factual determinations are reviewed deferentially — courts may not re-weigh the evidence or substitute their own judgment.
Issues on Review
Issue 1: Evaluation of Nurse Stageberg's Medical Opinion
Nurse Jessica Stageberg opined that Christopher J. could occasionally and frequently lift/carry less than 10 pounds, could stand, walk, or sit for less than 2 hours in an 8-hour workday, needed to shift positions at will, would sometimes need to lie down at unpredictable intervals, could rarely twist, stoop, crouch, or climb, and would be absent from work more than 4 days per month.
The regulations require an ALJ to explain the "supportability" (how well an opinion is backed by objective medical evidence) and "consistency" (how well it aligns with other evidence in the record) of each medical opinion. The court found the ALJ satisfied this obligation. The ALJ noted that Nurse Stageberg's limitations were supported by Christopher J.'s chronic pain and ongoing complaints, but found the extreme limitations were not consistent with the course of treatment, clinical findings, or activities of daily living after the amended onset date of January 4, 2024. The ALJ also found the extreme limitations were not supported by a reasonable explanation or by citing clinical or diagnostic data related to the medically determinable impairments. Substantial evidence supported these conclusions, including records indicating pain management was "mostly effective" in spring 2024 and that physical therapy was improving strength and mobility in his right shoulder.
Issue 2: Evaluation of Subjective Symptoms
Social Security Ruling 16-3p requires the ALJ to evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of a claimant's self-reported symptoms. Christopher J. argued the ALJ mischaracterized evidence about his schooling, work activity, and failed to assess his medications.
The court rejected each sub-argument. On schooling, the court noted that records in the administrative file explicitly stated Christopher J. was "[g]oing back to school full time," supporting the ALJ's characterization. On work activity, the ALJ relied on Christopher J.'s own testimony that he worked 12 to 15 hours per week at O'Reilly's and approximately 6 hours per week at a seasonal job — the court declined to re-weigh that evidence. On medications, the court found the ALJ reviewed Christopher J.'s extensive treatment history, including his use of oxycodone for pain management, and that an ALJ's failure to cite each piece of evidence does not mean it was not considered.
Issue 3: Logical Bridge Between Evidence and RFC
Christopher J. argued that the ALJ failed to build a logical bridge between the medical evidence and the RFC, specifically by not accounting for necessary absences due to surgeries and medical appointments, not properly addressing imaging evidence of anatomical pathology, and not fully considering his diabetes in combination with other impairments.
The court found that the ALJ reviewed years of medical records — including a gastrectomy, migraine treatment, spinal issues, foot surgery, shoulder surgery, and pain management — and considered Christopher J.'s self-reported daily activities such as cleaning, cooking, driving, and living independently. The court further found the ALJ specifically considered Christopher J.'s diabetes when evaluating the severity of his impairments. The court concluded that substantial evidence supports the ALJ's determination, regardless of whether the court might have reached a different conclusion.
Disposition
Judge Elkins denied Christopher J.'s request for relief, granted the Commissioner's request for relief, and dismissed the matter.
Read the full 15-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.