Diedrich v. Bisignano
- Douglas Micko
- 0:25-cv-01156
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 9
In Shannon D. v. Bisignano, Judge Micko reversed the Social Security Commissioner's denial of disability benefits and remanded because the ALJ's conclusions about the plaintiff's migraines lacked substantial evidence.
People who have applied for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits and whose claims were denied by an ALJ, particularly those with episodic conditions like migraines where the ALJ may have used general activity levels to discount subjective symptom complaints despite consistent medical documentation.
What happened
Shannon D. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security Administration (No. 25-cv-1156) arises from the Social Security Administration's denial of Disability Insurance Benefits to Shannon D., a former police officer who was assaulted on the job in 2019 and has since suffered from vertigo, migraine headaches, and other serious impairments. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that she was not disabled, concluding that her daily activities and medical records were inconsistent with her claims of debilitating migraines, and did not include any limitation in her functional capacity rating related to migraines causing absences or time off-task. Shannon D. appealed to federal court, arguing the ALJ failed to properly weigh the impact of her migraines and also failed to address her need for a service dog.
The court found that the ALJ's treatment of Shannon D.'s migraine evidence was not supported by substantial evidence — meaning the record as a whole did not contain enough reliable evidence to back up the ALJ's conclusion. The ALJ had pointed to Shannon D.'s active lifestyle (vacations, hunting, exercising) to discount her migraine complaints, but the court noted she had testified that she rarely does those activities anymore due to her impairments and that others help with household tasks. The court also found that her medical records, which documented chronic and debilitating migraines treated through multiple medications and Botox injections over several years, actually supported her complaints rather than contradicting them. On the service dog issue, however, the court found no error: the dog appeared only briefly in the record and no medical consultant found it medically necessary.
United States Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko granted Shannon D.'s memorandum in part, reversed the Commissioner's decision denying benefits, and remanded the case to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings. The Commissioner's memorandum was denied. The remand directs the agency to reconsider how Shannon D.'s migraines affect her ability to work; the court did not order that benefits be awarded outright.
The detailed version
- Diedrich v. Bisignano · No. 0:25-cv-01156
- Douglas L. Micko
- Aug. 26, 2026
Background
Shannon D. applied for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) in June 2023, alleging disability beginning September 1, 2019 — the date she was assaulted while serving as a police officer. The Social Security Administration (SSA) denied her claim initially and on reconsideration. After a hearing on June 13, 2024, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued an unfavorable decision on September 3, 2024.
The ALJ acknowledged several severe impairments: attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), depressive disorder, headache disorder, hip degenerative disorder, lumbar degenerative disorder, fibromyalgia, and mild cognitive disorder/traumatic brain injury. Despite these, the ALJ determined Shannon D. retained a residual functional capacity (RFC) — the most a claimant can do despite her limitations — for sedentary work with numerous restrictions, including noise limitations, avoidance of hazards and atmospheric irritants, limited climbing, and restrictions on social interaction and task complexity. The RFC did not include any limitation for migraine-related absences or time off-task.
A vocational expert testified that three representative jobs existed in the national economy that a person with Shannon D.'s limitations (as described by the ALJ) could perform. However, the vocational expert also testified that missing more than one day per month due to migraines would eliminate all available jobs.
The ALJ discounted Shannon D.'s subjective complaints of incapacitating migraines — including her testimony of experiencing roughly six migraines per month, each requiring her to lie down in a darkened room — on the grounds that her daily activities were "fairly active" and that her medical records and treatment course were inconsistent with her claimed severity. The ALJ's decision contained no discussion of Shannon D.'s service dog.
Standard of Review
The court reviews an ALJ's denial-of-benefits decision to determine whether it is supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole and is free of legal error. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Substantial evidence is defined as "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion," which is less than a preponderance of the evidence. The court does not reverse if substantial evidence supports the ALJ's decision, even if substantial evidence might also support the opposite conclusion.
Issue 1: Migraine Evidence
The court found the ALJ's conclusions about Shannon D.'s migraines were not supported by substantial evidence.
Activities of Daily Living
The ALJ relied on Shannon D.'s listed hobbies — sports, hunting, fishing, riding horses, riding motorcycles, home repairs — to discount her complaints. The court noted that Shannon D. clarified she rarely engages in these activities due to her impairments (testifying, for example, that she had not ridden a horse in at least two years) and that she receives help with household chores and repairs. The court further reasoned that an episodic condition like migraines is not inconsistent with having an otherwise active lifestyle during periods when symptoms are not present.
Medical Records
The court reviewed Shannon D.'s longitudinal treatment records from 2019 through 2024, spanning numerous visits. The court found these records consistently documented serious headaches and migraines. At a June 2023 headache evaluation, her migraines were occurring 12–16 times per month and described as "quite debilitating." Multiple pharmacological regimens had failed, leading to Botox injections, which reduced but did not eliminate debilitating migraines (to approximately six per month). The court concluded the medical record as a whole supported, rather than contradicted, Shannon D.'s subjective complaints — the opposite of what the ALJ had found.
Because the ALJ failed to properly account for the effect of Shannon D.'s migraines in formulating the RFC, the court found reversible error.
Issue 2: Service Dog
Although remand was already warranted, the court addressed the service dog issue for completeness. The court found no error in the ALJ's omission of a service-dog limitation from the RFC. The burden rests on the claimant to establish that greater RFC limitations are warranted. Shannon D.'s service dog appeared in the record only sporadically — noted as accompanying her at certain appointments — and no state agency medical or psychological consultant found the dog medically necessary. Shannon D.'s own hearing testimony mentioned the dog only in the context of caring for pets at home. The court held that given this limited record, it was not error for the ALJ to exclude a service-dog limitation.
Disposition
Judge Micko granted Shannon D.'s memorandum as follows: the Commissioner's decision denying benefits was reversed, and the case was remanded to the Commissioner under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings consistent with the order. The Commissioner's memorandum was denied. The court did not direct an award of benefits; the remand requires further proceedings at the agency level.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.