Thomas C. v. Bisignano

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
THOMAS C.,
Plaintiff,
v.
FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner
of Social Security,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
C.A. No. 1:26-cv-112-MSM-AEM
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Mary S. McElroy, United States District Judge.
The plaintiff, Thomas C., brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for
review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of his claim for Disability
Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) under Title II
of the Social Security Act. 	ECF No. 1. 	Before the Court are Thomas’s Motion to
Reverse 	the 	Decision 	of 	the 	Commissioner 	(ECF 	No. 	9) 	and 	the 	defendant
Commissioner’s Motion to Affirm that decision ECF No. 10. 	After reviewing the
record and the parties’ submissions, the Court GRANTS the Commissioner’s Motion
to Affirm and DENIES Thomas’s Motion to Reverse.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Thomas applied for DIB and SSI on January 3, 2022, alleging disability
beginning February 27, 2020, due to pain and other issues involving his knee,
depression, arthritis, and ADHD. ECF No. 6 at 417–429, 482. His claim was initially
Case 1:26-cv-00112-MSM-AEM Document 11 Filed 10/14/26 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
denied on April 28, 2023, and again upon reconsideration on December 4, 2023.
	Id.
at 205–212, 228–232. After a hearing with an Administrative Law Judge (the “ALJ”)
held on December 4, 2023, the ALJ issued a decision finding that Thomas was not
disabled.
Id. at 178–91. The ALJ made her decision through the five-step sequential
evaluation provided for in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a).
	Id. As part of that decision, she
determined 	that, 	although 	Thomas 	had 	several 	physical 	and 	psychological
impairments, he retained the residual functional capacity to perform certain kinds of
work.
	Id. at 184. 	As relevant here, the ALJ found that he remained able to
“frequently 	interact 	with 	supervisors” 	and 	“could 	occasionally 	interact 	with
coworkers and the general public.”
Id.
Thomas appealed that decision to the Appeals Council, which remanded his
case to the ALJ to resolve two issues.
	Id. at 200–01. 	First, the Appeals Council
determined that his claim file contained a June 10, 2022, function report that was
material to Thomas’s claim and should consequently have been admitted into the
record as an exhibit and considered by the ALJ.
	Id. at 200. 	Second, the Appeals
Council found that the ALJ’s decision did not contain “an adequate evaluation of
opinion evidence in assessing the claimant’s residual functional capacity” because it
did not address the consistency of relevant medical opinions with other sources,
including evidence suggesting that he had difficulties with collaboration and was
irascible during a consultative examination.
Id. at 200–01.
On remand, the ALJ held a second hearing with Thomas before issuing another
unfavorable decision on September 18, 2025.
	Id. at 20–49. 	Through the same five-
Case 1:26-cv-00112-MSM-AEM Document 11 Filed 10/14/26 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
step sequential evaluation process as in her first decision, the ALJ again determined
that, although Thomas had physical and psychological impairments, he retained a
sufficient residual functional capacity to perform light work.
Id. at 31–41. This time,
however, the ALJ included a more extensive review of the medical opinion and other
record evidence and concluded that he “can
occasionally interact with supervisors and
coworkers” and that he “can
never interact with the general public.”
	Id. at 31
(emphasis added). 	Thomas requested the Appeals Council review the ALJ’s second
decision, arguing that the ALJ failed to comply with the Appeals Council’s remand
instructions.
	Id. at 606–11. 	The Appeals Council denied that request, finding “no
reason under [its] rules to review the Administrative Law Judge’s decision.”
Id. at 7.
Thomas then filed this suit. ECF No. 1.
II. 	STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Commissioner’s factual findings are conclusive if they are supported by
substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Substantial evidence “means—and means
only—‘such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion.’”
Biestek v. Berryhill, 587 U.S. 97, 103 (2019) (quoting
Consol.
Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)).
The Court must uphold the Commissioner’s findings if the evidence as a whole
could reasonably support that conclusion.
	Rodriguez v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs., 647 F.2d 218, 222–23 (1st Cir. 1981) (citing Consol. Edison Co., 305 U.S. at
229). If substantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s decision, the Court should
affirm it, “even if the record arguably could justify a different conclusion.”
Rodriguez
Case 1:26-cv-00112-MSM-AEM Document 11 Filed 10/14/26 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
Pagan v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 819 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1987). That said, the
ALJ’s findings are “not conclusive when derived by ignoring evidence, misapplying
the law, or judging matters entrusted to experts.”
Nguyen v. Chater, 172 F.3d 31, 35
(1st Cir. 1999).
III. 	DISCUSSION
Thomas’s only argument is that the ALJ failed to sufficiently address the
issues identified by the Appeals Council in its remand order. 	ECF No. 9 at 8–12.
Specifically, 	he 	contends 	that 	the 	ALJ’s 	decision 	does 	not 	meaningfully 	and
specifically address the consistency of medical opinion evidence from two doctors with
other medical and nonmedical evidence in the record.
Id. 	While the Appeals Council
implicitly rejected his argument that the ALJ did not comply with its own remand
order by denying review of the ALJ’s second decision, he asks the Court to reverse or
remand that second decision through its own review of the record.
Id. at 12.
The first of the medical opinions at issue was that of Dr. Schwartz, a
psychological consultative examiner.
See ECF No. 6 at 947–956. Dr. Schwartz based
her opinion on a clinical interview and some of Thomas’s prior medical records.
	Id.
at 947. 	In the relevant part of her opinion, she concluded that he was moderately
limited in his ability to understand, remember, and follow directions and moderately
to severely limited in his ability to respond appropriately to customary work
pressures, colleagues, and supervisors.
Id. at 955. She also concluded that his social
skills were mildly to moderately impaired and that he demonstrated limited coping
skills.
Id.
Case 1:26-cv-00112-MSM-AEM Document 11 Filed 10/14/26 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
The second relevant opinion was that of Dr. Killenberg, a state agency
psychological consultant.
Id. at 149–50, 154–55. Dr. Killenberg based her opinion on
two assessments of Thomas, and concluded, among other findings, that he was
“poorly suited to tasks that require sustained interpersonal contact,” could “sustain
interactions 	in 	work 	settings 	with 	minimal 	interpersonal 	and 	conversational
demands,” 	and 	would 	be 	“prone 	to 	occasional 	irritable 	verbal 	outbursts 	with
supervisors.”
Id. at 155.
The 	Appeals 	Council’s 	remand 	order 	directed 	the 	ALJ 	to 	evaluate 	the
consistency of these two medical opinions with two other reports by Thomas’s medical
providers. 	First, Dr. Hahn noted that Thomas had a “h[istory] of conflicts with
others” and was “not suited for direct and sustained interface with the public or
frequent collaboration with bosses and co-workers.
Id. at 124, 138. Second, Dr. Hyde
reported that, during a mental status examination of Thomas, his “speech was loud
and pressured,” he occasionally used profanity, and he became agitated during part
of the examination.
Id. at 819.
Having reviewed the administrative record before it, the Court is satisfied that
the ALJ’s decision sufficiently addressed the consistency of these medical opinions
with the other objective evidence referred to by the Appeals Council. In her decision,
the ALJ re-evaluated the opinions of Dr. Schwartz and Dr. Killenberg, found them
persuasive in part, and determined that Thomas was subject to greater limitations
regarding interaction with supervisors and the general public.
Id. at 31, 37–39. The
ALJ expressly noted that Dr. Schwartz’s opinion regarding Thomas’s limitations on
Case 1:26-cv-00112-MSM-AEM Document 11 Filed 10/14/26 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
interacting 	with 	others 	were 	“supported 	by 	corresponding 	exam 	findings 	and
consistent with the record as a whole,” that Dr. Killenberg’s opinion described
“moderate limitations” in social functioning “like [Thomas’s] initial assessment,” and
that Dr. Killenberg’s opinion described “moderate limitations in the area of adapting
and managing oneself, which [were] more consistent with the claimant’s longitudinal
history of irritability and difficulty getting along with others.”
	Id. at 38. 	The ALJ
reviewed the corresponding exam findings, Thomas’s initial assessment, and his
longitudinal history elsewhere in her decision,
	see id. at 29–36, and she was
permitted to refer back to that review when discussing Dr. Schwartz’s and Dr.
Killenberg’s opinions.
See Knapp v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 810 F.2d 315, 316
(1st Cir. 1987) (“We read the [ALJ’s] opinion as a whole[.]”).
To the extent that Thomas more specifically challenges the consistency of the
ALJ’s conclusions with Dr. Killenberg’s medical opinion,
see ECF No. 9 at 11–12, the
Court is also satisfied that the ALJ’s finding that Thomas could occasionally interact
with 	co-workers 	and 	supervisors 	was 	supported 	by 	substantial 	evidence.
“‘Occasionally’ means occurring from very little up to one-third of the time, and would
generally total no more than about 2 hours of an 8-hour workday.” 	Social Security
Ruling 96-9p, 1996 WL 374185, at *3 (July 2, 1996). 	Dr. Killenberg’s restriction of
Thomas to “minimal interpersonal and conversational demands” is not inconsistent
with 	this 	definition 	of 	“occasionally.” 	And 	the 	ALJ’s 	determination 	that 	Dr.
Killenberg’s finding that Thomas would be “prone to occasional irritable verbal
outbursts with supervisors” was not a vocationally defined or relevant term is not
Case 1:26-cv-00112-MSM-AEM Document 11 Filed 10/14/26 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
“reversible error in and of itself” as Thomas suggests.
See ECF No. 9 at 12;
compare
Ronald P. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:22-cv-163, 2022 WL 11615725, at *5 (S.D.
Ohio Oct. 20, 2022) (finding that a medical opinion that a claimant was “likely prone
to agitated outbursts,” was “vague [and] not vocationally relevant”).
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the Court GRANTS the Commissioner’s Motion to Affirm
(ECF No. 10) and DENIES Thomas’s Motion to Reverse (ECF No. 9).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_________________________________
Mary S. McElroy
United States District Judge
October 14, 2026
Case 1:26-cv-00112-MSM-AEM Document 11 Filed 10/14/26 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>