Frankman v. Bisignano
- Laura Provinzino
- 0:25-cv-02371
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Amy F. v. Bisignano, Judge Provinzino adopted a magistrate's recommendation reversing the Social Security Commissioner's denial of Supplemental Security Income and remanding for further proceedings.
Individuals who have applied for Supplemental Security Income and had their claims denied by the Social Security Administration, particularly those whose cases have been remanded to the agency before and who are concerned about whether the agency will follow court instructions on remand.
What happened
In Amy F. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (Case No. 25-cv-2371), plaintiff Amy F. sought federal court review of the Social Security Administration's final decision denying her application for Supplemental Security Income. She asked the court to reverse that decision and send the matter back to the agency for further consideration, while the Commissioner argued the denial should be upheld in full.
United States Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty issued a Report and Recommendation on July 22, 2026, recommending that both sides' requested relief be granted in part and denied in part, and ultimately recommending that the Commissioner's decision be reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. The magistrate judge also noted concern about the administrative law judge's (the agency official who decided Amy F.'s case) failure to follow prior remand instructions, and raised the possibility of simply awarding Amy F. her benefits outright without another remand. Neither party objected to the Report and Recommendation.
Judge Laura M. Provinzino reviewed the Report and Recommendation for clear error, found none, and adopted it in full. The court reversed the Commissioner's final decision on Amy F.'s Supplemental Security Income application and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the magistrate's report. The court declined to award benefits outright since no party urged that approach, but noted in a footnote that outright reversal may be warranted if the agency again fails to follow remand instructions.
The detailed version
- Frankman v. Bisignano · No. 0:25-cv-02371
- Laura M. Provinzino
- Aug. 18, 2026
Background
Plaintiff Amy F. brought this action seeking judicial review of a final decision by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denying her application for Supplemental Security Income (SSI), a federal benefits program for individuals with limited income and resources who are disabled. Amy F. asked the court to reverse the Commissioner's decision and remand (send back) the case to the Social Security Administration for further consideration. The Commissioner opposed Amy F.'s request and asked the court to affirm the denial in full.
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
The matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty, who issued a Report and Recommendation on July 22, 2026. Magistrate Judge Docherty recommended granting in part and denying in part the relief requested by each party, and ultimately recommended reversing the Commissioner's decision and remanding the case for further proceedings.
The Report and Recommendation also expressed concern about the administrative law judge's (ALJ) — the agency official who presided over Amy F.'s case — noncompliance with previous remand instructions. As an alternative, the magistrate judge suggested the court could reverse the Commissioner's decision outright and award Amy F. the benefits she seeks, without sending the case back to the agency. However, neither party filed objections to the Report and Recommendation or urged the court to adopt this alternative approach.
Standard of Review
Because no party filed objections to the Report and Recommendation, the district court reviewed it only for clear error — a more deferential standard than the de novo (fresh, independent) review that applies when objections are filed. The court cited Braun v. Minnesota and Grinder v. Gammon in support of this standard.
Ruling
Judge Provinzino found no clear error in the Report and Recommendation and adopted it in full. The court issued the following specific dispositions:
- The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 26) is adopted.
- The relief requested in Amy F.'s Memorandum of Law is granted in part and denied in part.
- The relief requested in the Commissioner's Brief is granted in part and denied in part.
- The Commissioner's final decision regarding Amy F.'s SSI application is reversed.
- The case is remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) — a statutory provision authorizing federal courts to reverse or affirm agency decisions and remand for further proceedings — for further proceedings consistent with the Report and Recommendation.
The court declined to award Amy F. her benefits outright, following the "ordinary course" of remand since no party advocated for that alternative. In a footnote, the court stated that it has "every confidence" the ALJ will follow the remand instructions, but warned that outright reversal may be warranted if the ALJ again fails to comply.
Notes
The opinion does not detail the specific legal errors the magistrate judge identified in the ALJ's decision, nor the precise grounds on which the prior remand instructions were allegedly not followed. The full analysis is contained in the magistrate's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 26), which is incorporated by reference but not reproduced in this order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.