Case Name in Social Security Case - Unavailable

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
EVANSVILLE DIVISION
JUSTIN B.,1 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 3:25-cv-00052-RLY-CSW
)
FRANK BISIGNANO, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
ENTRY ON PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, Justin B., suffers from a variety of mental health disorders, including
schizophrenia and social anxiety disorder, as well as neuroleptic induced Parkinsonism.
He filed a request for judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of the
Social Security Administration denying his Title II application for a Period of Disability
and Disability Insurance Benefits and denying his Title XVI application for Supplemental
Security Income. The court referred the matter to the Magistrate Judge, who
recommends that this court affirm the Commissioner's decision. Plaintiff objects.
I. 	Standard of Review
The court reviews the ALJ's decision de novo to ensure that it applies the correct
legal standard and is supported by substantial evidence. Stephens v. Berryhill, 888 F.3d
1 To protect the privacy interest of claimants for Social Security benefits, consistent with the
recommendation of the Court Administration and Case Management Committee of the
Administrative Office of the United States Courts, the Southern District of Indiana has opted to
use only the first name and last initial of non-governmental parties in its Social Security judicial
review opinions.
Case 3:25-cv-00052-RLY-CSW Document 21 Filed 02/09/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
323, 327 (7th Cir. 2018). Substantial evidence is defined as "such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Stepp v. Colvin, 795
F.3d 711, 718 (7th Cir. 2015) (quoting Elder v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 408, 413 (7th Cir. 2008)).
The court's review is deferential; it may not "reweigh the evidence, resolve conflicts,
decide questions of credibility, or substitute [its] own judgment for that of the
Commissioner." Clifford v. Apfel, 227 F.3d 863, 869 (7th Cir. 2000). So long as the ALJ
has relied on reasonable evidence and built a logical and accurate bridge between the
evidence and the conclusion, the decision must stand. Thomas v. Colvin, 745 F.3d 802,
806 (7th Cir. 2014).
II. 	Discussion
The issue before the Magistrate Judge was whether the ALJ's failure to consider
Dr. Radnovich's opinions in formulating his residual functional capacity ("RFC") was
reversible error. (Dkt. 14 at ECF. p. 4).
Plaintiff's treating psychiatrist, Dr. Alexander Radnovich, opined, among other
things, that Plaintiff would be expected to miss more than three days of work per month
due to his impairments, and his symptoms would be expected to "frequently" interfere
with attention and concentration. (Dkt. 11-9 at ECF p. 609). The vocational expert
testified that either of these limitations would be work-preclusive. (Dkt. 11-2 at ECF
p. 42).
An ALJ may not disregard an entire line of evidence. Villano v. Astrue, 556 F.3d
558, 563 (7th Cir. 2009). But an ALJ may discount a treating physician's medical opinion
if: (1) the opinion "is inconsistent with the opinion of a consulting physician" or (2) the
Case 3:25-cv-00052-RLY-CSW Document 21 Filed 02/09/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
opinion "is internally inconsistent, as long as [the ALJ] minimally articulates his reasons
for crediting or rejecting evidence of disability." Schmidt v. Astrue, 496 F.3d 833, 842
(7th Cir. 2007) (quoting Skarbek v. Barnhart, 390 F.3d 500, 503 (7th Cir. 2004)).
In his decision, the ALJ stated:
The opinions of Dr. Radnovich are not persuasive. The opinions are not
internally consistent with contemporaneous treatment or examination notes,
as well as not generally supported by the evidence. 	For example, the
claimant showed normal attention and concentration at an August 2022
psychological consultative examination and the longitudinal medical record
did not objectively document recurring deficits in attention or concentration
throughout 	the 	normal 	course 	of 	outpatient 	mental 	health 	treatment.
Furthermore, 	the 	claimant's 	most 	recent 	psychiatric 	notes 	from 	Dr.
Radnovich 	as 	well 	as his 	psychotherapy 	notes throughout 2023 have
recorded the claimant with improvement in his mental health, including
logical 	thought 	processes, 	intact 	associations, 	no 	hallucinations, 	rare
presence of delusion and no paranoia. (Exhibits 30F/3, 8, 12, 19; 38F; 40F)
and, per his psychotherapist, behavior, insight, and judgment within normal
limits. (Exhibits 30F/12, 15, 18; 40F/21, 24, 27, 30, 33, 37, 41, 44, 48, 51,
54, 58, 61, 65, 68, 72, 76, 80, 84).
(Dkt. 12-2 at ECF p. 18). The Magistrate Judge concluded that the ALJ minimally
articulated why he rejected Dr. Radnovich's opinions. (Dkt. 18 at ECF p. 8). She
reasoned:
The ALJ found that Dr. Radnovich's opinions were "not persuasive" because
they "are not internally consistent with contemporaneous treatment or
examination notes, as well as not generally supported by the evidence." (Id.
at p. 18). 	The ALJ provided several examples, including Dr. Radnovich’s
opinion's inconsistency with single examination reports and longitudinal data
on Claimant’s attention and concentration. 	(Id.). 	Further, the ALJ noted
progress reported by Dr. Radnovich himself, again on a singular occasion
and longitudinally, which support the ALJ's overall finding that Claimant’s
mental health differs from that reported in Dr. Radnovich's opinion. (Id.).
(Dkt. 18 at ECF p. 8).
Case 3:25-cv-00052-RLY-CSW Document 21 Filed 02/09/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
On appeal, Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
("R&R"), arguing the ALJ failed to minimally articulate his reasons for discounting Dr.
Radnovich's opinions. The court disagrees. The ALJ explained that Dr. Radnovich's
opinions were not persuasive; they were internally inconsistent and unsupported by the
evidence. The ALJ supported his decision with citations to the record. Accordingly, the
ALJ satisfied the minimal articulation requirement.
III. 	Conclusion
For the reasons explained above, the court OVERRULES Plaintiff's Objection
and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's R&R (Dkt. 18). The Commissioner's decision
denying benefits is AFFIRMED. Judgment shall issue by separate Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of February 2026.
Distributed Electronically to Registered Counsel of Record.
Case 3:25-cv-00052-RLY-CSW Document 21 Filed 02/09/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>