Kimball v. Bisignano
- Laura Provinzino
- 0:25-cv-02360
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 6
In Jill L. K. v. Bisignano, Judge Provinzino affirmed the Social Security Administration's denial of disability insurance benefits, finding the ALJ properly evaluated the plaintiff's subjective pain complaints.
People who have applied for Social Security disability insurance benefits and had their claims denied, particularly those whose subjective pain complaints were discounted by an administrative law judge, may be affected by this decision's discussion of the standards for evaluating pain testimony.
What happened
In Jill L. K. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security, a plaintiff identified as Jill L. K. asked a federal court to reverse a Social Security Administration administrative law judge's decision that denied her application for disability insurance benefits. A magistrate judge had previously reviewed the case and recommended affirming the denial, and Jill filed one objection to that recommendation, arguing the administrative law judge failed to properly consider her subjective complaints of pain.
Jill's key argument was that the administrative law judge did not genuinely apply the required framework for evaluating subjective pain claims — known as the Polaski factors — but instead just wrote a boilerplate summary. The court disagreed, finding that the administrative law judge explicitly cited and applied the relevant federal regulations that mirror the Polaski factors, and walked through medical evidence related to her hip pain, back pain, shoulder pain, and arthritis — including records showing full range of motion, stable gait, broadly stable back symptoms, and the effectiveness of her injections and medications. The court noted that Jill did not dispute that the evidence the administrative law judge cited actually contradicted her claims of disabling pain.
Judge Laura M. Provinzino overruled Jill's objection, adopted the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation in full, denied Jill's motion, granted the Commissioner's motion, affirmed the administrative law judge's decision, and dismissed the case with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Kimball v. Bisignano · No. 0:25-cv-02360
- Laura M. Provinzino
- Aug. 24, 2026
Background
Plaintiff Jill L. K. sought judicial review in federal district court of a Social Security Administration (SSA) administrative law judge's (ALJ) decision denying her application for disability insurance benefits. On July 6, 2026, United States Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) recommending that the ALJ's decision be affirmed. Jill timely filed a single objection to the R&R.
Standard of Review
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3), the district court reviews de novo — meaning fresh, without deference — those portions of an R&R that a party specifically challenges. Portions of the R&R that a party does not object to are reviewed only for clear error, a more deferential standard.
Jill's Objection: Subjective Pain Evaluation
Jill's sole objection challenged the R&R's conclusion that the ALJ properly considered her subjective complaints of pain. Under Eighth Circuit precedent, an ALJ's decision to partially discredit a claimant's subjective complaints must be supported by "substantial evidence" — meaning enough evidence that a reasonable mind could accept it as adequate to support the conclusion. The Eighth Circuit has identified seven "Polaski" factors ALJs should consider when evaluating subjective complaints: (1) daily activities; (2) duration, frequency, and intensity of pain; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication; (5) functional restrictions; (6) work history; and (7) absence of objective medical evidence supporting the complaints. The ALJ is not required to explicitly discuss each factor, but must make an express credibility determination explaining why complaints are being discounted.
The Court's Analysis
The court found that the ALJ did follow the required framework. The ALJ made an express credibility determination, concluding that while Jill's medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to cause the alleged symptoms, her statements about their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects were "not entirely consistent" with the medical and other evidence in the record.
For Jill's hip pain, the ALJ noted her medical records showed full range of motion, overall excellent strength of hip flexors, a stable and upright gait, and that epidural steroid injections provided approximately six weeks of relief. For her back pain, the ALJ acknowledged some level of pain but cited sacroiliac injections and medical records indicating broadly stable low back symptoms not worsening in severity. The ALJ also addressed Jill's use of prescription medication for shoulder pain and arthritis-related joint pain.
Jill argued that the ALJ's analysis was merely a boilerplate conclusion and summary of evidence, not a genuine Polaski analysis, partly because the ALJ never cited Polaski by name. The court rejected this argument. The ALJ explicitly stated he was evaluating evidence pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and Social Security Ruling 16-3p — regulations that "largely mirror" the Polaski factors. Citing Schultz v. Astrue, 479 F.3d 979 (8th Cir. 2007), the court held that citing and analyzing under those regulations adequately satisfies Polaski's requirements. The court further noted that the ALJ clearly considered at least four Polaski factors and was not required to explicitly tie each piece of evidence to a specific factor. Critically, the court observed that Jill did not dispute that the evidence cited by the ALJ actually undermined her subjective pain claims.
The court also noted that it found no clear error in the R&R's unobjected-to conclusions that the ALJ properly evaluated the supportability and consistency of relevant medical opinions and that the ALJ's residual functional capacity (RFC) determination — the finding of what work a claimant can still do despite limitations — was supported by substantial evidence.
Disposition
Judge Provinzino issued the following rulings: - Jill L. K.'s objection: OVERRULED - Jill L. K.'s Motion (ECF No. 16): DENIED - The Commissioner's Motion (ECF No. 24): GRANTED - The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 31): ADOPTED IN FULL - The ALJ's decision denying benefits: AFFIRMED - The case: DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.