Forbes v. Bisignano
- Dulce Foster
- 0:25-cv-03723
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 19
In Alyssa G.F. v. Bisignano, Magistrate Judge Foster granted in part and denied in part both parties' requests, remanding the Social Security disability denial because the ALJ failed to explain why she omitted a stress-adaptation limitation from the claimant's functional capacity assessment.
People who have been denied Social Security disability benefits and whose cases involved psychological consultants recommending mental functioning limitations that the ALJ found persuasive but did not include in the residual functional capacity assessment without explanation. This ruling may also be relevant to claimants whose ALJs omitted specific mental limitations — particularly stress or adaptation limitations — while restricting them only to 'simple tasks.'
What happened
In Alyssa G.F. v. Bisignano (Case No. 25-cv-3723), Plaintiff Alyssa G.F. sought court review of a September 3, 2024 Social Security Administration decision denying her applications for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. She alleged disability due to numerous conditions including fibromyalgia, trigeminal neuralgia, Ehlers-Danlos Disorder, anxiety, depression, and others. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) — the agency official who decided her case — found she was not disabled and could perform jobs such as information clerk, garment sorter, and marker.
Alyssa G.F. raised several challenges to the ALJ's decision, including that the ALJ ignored a recommended limitation tied to her ability to handle stress and adapt to workplace changes, that the ALJ improperly discounted her subjective pain complaints, that the ALJ failed to account for work absences caused by her treatment schedule and symptoms, and that a sit/stand option in the ALJ's assessment lacked evidentiary support. The court focused first on the ALJ's handling of opinions from two state agency psychological consultants who found that Alyssa G.F. could respond only to simple, routine workplace changes — an 'adaptation limitation' — and who were explicitly found persuasive by the ALJ. Despite that finding, the ALJ included no such limitation in the functional capacity assessment and gave no explanation for the omission.
Magistrate Judge Foster granted in part and denied in part both parties' requests for relief and remanded the case to the Social Security Administration for further review. The court found reversible error in the ALJ's failure to either include the consultants' recommended adaptation limitation in the functional capacity assessment or explain why it was left out, which also meant the questions posed to the vocational expert (who testified about available jobs) were incomplete. The court rejected Alyssa G.F.'s remaining arguments — finding the ALJ's evaluation of her pain complaints was adequately supported, that she did not meet her burden of showing treatment appointments would necessarily cause disabling absenteeism, and that the sit/stand restriction did not require a specific medical opinion to support it.
The detailed version
- Forbes v. Bisignano · No. 0:25-cv-03723
- Dulce J. Foster
- Aug. 18, 2026
Background
Plaintiff Alyssa G.F. applied for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) under Title II and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) under Title XVI of the Social Security Act on December 19, 2022, with an alleged disability onset date of August 21, 2021. She alleged disability based on fibromyalgia, trigeminal neuralgia, Ehlers-Danlos Disorder, anxiety, depression, irritable bowel syndrome, cervical spinal stenosis, joint pain, intercostal spasms, and cognitive dysfunction. At the time of her application, she was 34 years old.
An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) — the agency official who conducts hearings and decides disability claims — held a hearing on July 17, 2024. Alyssa G.F. was represented by an attorney. Both she and a vocational expert (VE) testified. The ALJ evaluated the period from August 21, 2021 through September 3, 2024.
The ALJ's Decision
The ALJ evaluated Alyssa G.F.'s claim under the standard five-step sequential process used in Social Security disability cases. Relevant to this appeal:
- Step three: The ALJ evaluated Alyssa G.F.'s mental functioning under the 'paragraph B' criteria for Listings 12.04, 12.06, and 12.15, which assess four areas of mental functioning used in a work setting. The ALJ found Alyssa G.F. had a 'moderate' limitation in her ability to adapt and manage herself.
- Step four: The ALJ assessed Alyssa G.F.'s residual functional capacity (RFC) — the most she can still do despite her impairments. The RFC limited her to light work with restrictions on climbing, kneeling, crouching, crawling, and environmental exposures; limited her to simple tasks; and included a sit/stand option (alternating after 30 minutes, with one minute to transition, remaining on task more than 90% of the workday).
- Step five: Relying on VE Kenneth Jones's testimony, the ALJ found Alyssa G.F. could perform three jobs existing in significant numbers nationally: information clerk (65,000 jobs), garment sorter (22,000 jobs), and marker (64,000 jobs). The ALJ concluded she was not disabled and denied benefits on September 3, 2024.
Issues on Appeal
Alyssa G.F. raised four main arguments:
- The ALJ found the state agency psychological consultants' opinions persuasive but failed to include or explain the omission of the 'adaptation limitation' those consultants recommended.
- The ALJ improperly discounted her subjective complaints of pain.
- The ALJ failed to account for absenteeism caused by her treatment schedule and symptoms.
- The sit/stand restriction in the RFC lacked evidentiary support and conflicted with her testimony that she needs to lie down for relief.
Analysis
A. The Psychological Consultants' Adaptation Limitation — Reversible Error
State agency consultants Drs. Bolden and Kachgal opined that Alyssa G.F. had moderate limitations in her ability to adapt or manage herself and could 'appropriately respond to only simple routine changes in a work setting.' The ALJ agreed at step three that Alyssa G.F. had a moderate limitation in this area and found the consultants' opinions persuasive at step four. Consultative psychological examiner Dr. Van Noord also opined that Alyssa G.F. 'would likely have difficulty coping with mild to moderate stressors in the workplace,' and the ALJ found that opinion persuasive as well.
Despite finding these opinions persuasive, the ALJ's RFC contained no adaptation or stress-related limitation. The only mental limitation included was a restriction to 'simple tasks,' which the ALJ added based on Alyssa G.F.'s subjective reports of difficulty concentrating — a different area of mental functioning from adapting and managing oneself. The ALJ gave no explanation for why the adaptation limitation was omitted.
The Commissioner offered two defenses: (1) the simple tasks limitation implicitly covers adaptation, and (2) the jobs identified at step five are unskilled (SVP level 2), and unskilled work by definition requires the ability to deal with routine workplace changes. The court rejected both. As to the first, authority from this and other districts holds that simple/routine task limitations address the 'concentrate, persist, and maintain pace' domain — not the 'adapt or manage oneself' domain. As to the second, the court cited SSR 85-15 and recent caselaw for the proposition that 'skill level of a position is not necessarily related to the difficulty an individual will have in meeting the demands of the job' when a mental impairment is present.
The court found this omission — without explanation — constituted reversible error requiring remand, consistent with a line of District of Minnesota cases including Mark S.E. v. Kijakazi, Brent Z. v. Kijakazi, and Jennifer K. v. Kijakazi, as well as Austin C. v. Kijakazi from the Northern District of Iowa. Because the hypothetical question posed to the VE did not include any adaptation limitation, the VE's testimony cannot provide substantial evidence to support the step five conclusion.
On remand, the ALJ must either include limitations consistent with the consultants' adaptation findings in the RFC or explain their omission. If the RFC changes, the ALJ must pose a new hypothetical to the VE and reconsider the step five finding.
B. Subjective Complaints of Pain — No Error
The court found no reversible error in the ALJ's evaluation of Alyssa G.F.'s subjective complaints. The ALJ conducted the required analysis under the Polaski framework (which considers daily activities, pain duration/frequency/intensity, aggravating factors, medication effectiveness and side effects, and functional restrictions) and supported her conclusions with good reasons and substantial evidence. The ALJ discussed Alyssa G.F.'s daily activities (including moving heavy furniture, caring for four children, working part-time as a massage therapist), diagnosis and condition severity, treatment effectiveness, and functional restrictions across four pages of the decision.
Alyssa G.F. relied on Reed v. Barnhart and the out-of-circuit unpublished case Chelsea A. v. Kijakazi. The court distinguished Reed, noting that later Eighth Circuit decisions clarified that ALJs may reasonably rely on daily activities — including caring for children — to weigh subjective complaints. The court found Chelsea A. inapposite because it concerned evaluation of medical opinions under a different analytical framework, not Polaski factors for subjective complaints.
C. Absenteeism — No Error
Course of treatment
Alyssa G.F. argued that her ketamine infusions and other treatment appointments would require absences that preclude gainful employment, and she counted specific appointment days across 2022–2024. The court held that counting scheduled appointment days is insufficient to establish an absenteeism limitation. A plaintiff must show that appointments can only be scheduled during working hours — not merely that they occurred frequently. Alyssa G.F. did not meet that burden.
Symptoms
Alyssa G.F. argued that grogginess the day after infusions and pain flares after injections would cause additional missed days. The court rejected this. Because the ALJ's credibility determination regarding subjective complaints was supported by substantial evidence, the ALJ was not required to credit those statements. Moreover, the medical records documented that Alyssa G.F. tolerated infusions within normal limits and reported no side effects, distinguishing this case from Baker v. Apfel, where absenteeism was uncontroverted by medical evidence.
D. Sit/Stand Option — No Error
The ALJ included a sit/stand option based on Plaintiff's testimony and records suggesting she experienced relief from changing positions. Alyssa G.F. argued there was no medical opinion supporting the restriction and that her actual testimony was that lying down — not sitting or standing — provided relief. The court found no error: the ALJ's credibility finding meant she was not required to credit the lie-down testimony, and no legal requirement exists that every RFC limitation be supported by a specific medical opinion. Additionally, this restriction was favorable to Alyssa G.F. and did not materially affect the disability determination.
Disposition
Both Plaintiff's Request for Relief (ECF No. 12) and the Commissioner's Request for Relief (ECF No. 19) were each granted in part and denied in part. The case was remanded to the Social Security Administration pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with the court's order.
Read the full 19-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.