Latterell v. Bisignano
- Shannon Elkins
- 0:25-cv-03713
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 9
In Kenneth L. v. Bisignano, Magistrate Judge Elkins denied Kenneth L.'s challenge to the Social Security Administration's denial of his disability insurance benefits and dismissed the case.
People who have been denied Social Security disability insurance benefits and are seeking federal court review of that denial, particularly those with mental health diagnoses, chronic pain conditions, or other impairments who challenge an ALJ's assessment of their ability to work.
What happened
In Kenneth L. v. Frank Bisignano, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, the plaintiff, Kenneth L., appealed the Social Security Administration's decision denying his application for disability insurance benefits. He had applied in October 2022, claiming a disability onset date of March 2, 2022, and was denied at the administrative level. After an administrative law judge (ALJ) and the Appeals Council both denied his claims, he brought the case to federal court.
Kenneth L. raised several arguments for why the case should be sent back to the agency for further review. He argued that the ALJ wrongly classified the physical demands of his past work, that the ALJ's assessment of his ability to work was not supported by sufficient evidence, that the ALJ should have called a medical expert to testify about his mental health, and that the ALJ asked the vocational expert the wrong questions. The court addressed each argument and rejected all of them, finding that the ALJ properly considered Kenneth L.'s physical and mental health conditions — including suicidal and homicidal ideations, depression, anxiety, migraines, and degenerative disc disease — and that the ALJ's conclusions were supported by adequate evidence in the record.
Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins denied Kenneth L.'s request for relief, granted the Commissioner's request for relief, and dismissed the case. The court also struck Kenneth L.'s motion for summary judgment, explaining that the rules governing Social Security appeals no longer permit such motions.
The detailed version
- Latterell v. Bisignano · No. 0:25-cv-03713
- Shannon G. Elkins
- Aug. 11, 2026
Background
Plaintiff Kenneth L. applied for disability insurance benefits (DIB) under Title II of the Social Security Act on October 21, 2022, alleging a disability onset date of March 2, 2022. His application was denied initially on March 17, 2023, and on reconsideration on October 12, 2023. Kenneth L. then requested review by an administrative law judge (ALJ). On April 4, 2024, the ALJ held a hearing at which Kenneth L., represented by counsel, and a vocational expert (VE) testified. The ALJ issued a decision on May 10, 2024, denying benefits.
The ALJ applied the standard five-step sequential analysis. At step one, the ALJ found Kenneth L. had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged onset date. At step two, the ALJ found severe impairments including degenerative disc disease of the cervical spine, obesity, migraines, major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, executive function deficit, ADHD, borderline personality, and substance use in sustained remission. At step three, the ALJ found his impairments did not meet or equal a listed impairment. The ALJ then determined Kenneth L.'s residual functional capacity (RFC) — the most work a claimant can do despite their limitations — finding he could perform medium work with restrictions: occasional changes in a routine work setting; occasional interaction with coworkers and supervisors; simple instructions only; no interaction with the public; and no more than moderate noise. At step four, the ALJ found Kenneth L. could not perform his past relevant work. At step five, relying on VE testimony, the ALJ found Kenneth L. could perform jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy — specifically lab equipment cleaner (70,000 jobs), hand packager (130,000 jobs), and garment marker (35,000 jobs) — and therefore found him not disabled.
The Appeals Council denied review on April 15, 2025, and Kenneth L. filed this federal court action. Both parties consented to the case being decided by a Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
Standard of Review
The court's review is limited to whether the ALJ's decision complies with relevant legal standards and is supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence means less than a preponderance, but enough that a reasonable mind could accept it as adequate support for a conclusion. The court may not reweigh the evidence, and the ALJ's decision must be affirmed if it falls within the "available zone of choice" — meaning the court may not reverse simply because it would have reached a different conclusion.
Analysis
I. Past Relevant Work Characterization
Kenneth L. argued the ALJ incorrectly classified his past work as a cabinet assembler as "light" work rather than a higher exertion level. The court rejected this argument because the ALJ had already found that Kenneth L. could not perform any of his past relevant work — a finding in Kenneth L.'s favor. The court found no basis for remand on a classification error that did not affect the outcome.
II. Substantial Evidence Supporting the RFC
Kenneth L. argued the ALJ's RFC determination was not supported by substantial evidence, contending the ALJ improperly labeled his capacity as "medium," minimized his suicidal and homicidal ideations, and ignored disabling diagnoses including degenerative disc disease, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, cognitive deficit in concentration, borderline personality style, scleritis, and migraines.
The court disagreed, finding the record showed the ALJ considered Kenneth L.'s subjective reports of suicidal and homicidal ideations alongside medical records and treating physician reports. The court also noted that while the ALJ did not specifically discuss Kenneth L.'s cognitive deficit in concentration and borderline personality style, he was not required to, particularly given that the record was unclear whether those conditions had been formally diagnosed — they appeared in only two brief treatment notes. The court concluded the RFC was supported by substantial evidence.
Kenneth L. also argued the ALJ failed to develop the record adequately by not calling a medical expert to testify about his mental health. The court acknowledged that ALJs have a duty to develop the record fully and fairly, but found no authority requiring an ALJ to secure a witness when the claimant could have called his treating physicians to testify. Kenneth L. and his counsel had not done so. The court also noted the record appeared to contain all relevant medical records and physician observations, undercutting the claim that expert testimony was necessary.
III. Hypothetical Questions to the Vocational Expert
Kenneth L. argued the ALJ's hypothetical questions to the VE did not fully describe his functional limitations. Under Eighth Circuit precedent, hypothetical questions must include all impairments substantially supported by the record and reflect the concrete consequences of those impairments. The court found that because the RFC was supported by substantial evidence and the ALJ's questions to the VE were grounded in that RFC, this challenge also failed.
Disposition
The court denied Kenneth L.'s request for relief, granted the Commissioner's request for relief, and dismissed the case. The court also struck Kenneth L.'s motion for summary judgment, noting that the Federal Supplemental Rules of Civil Procedure no longer permit summary judgment motions in Social Security appeals. Judgment was entered accordingly.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.