Case Name in Social Security Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
KENNETH P.,1
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 2:25-cv-00270-DHU-LF
FRANK BISGIANO,2 Commissioner
of the Social Security Administration,
Defendant.
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on plaintiff Kenneth P.’s “Case Briefing” (Doc.
17) filed on October 14, 2025. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, and the Court construes this
document as a motion seeking an outright award of benefits for the one-year period prior to his
initial application for disability benefits in April of 2023. Id. at 3 (“I am simply asking the court
to give retro benefits as to what the law allows which is one year prior to the initial application
for disability in April of 2023.”). Plaintiff’s motion was fully briefed on January 14, 2026. See
Docs. 17, 19, 21. United States District Judge David H. Urias referred this case to me “to
perform any legal analysis required to recommend to the Court an ultimate disposition of the
case.” Doc. 22. Having read the briefing and being fully advised in the premises, I find that the
1 In the interest of privacy, this opinion uses only the first name and the initial of the last name of
the non-governmental party in this case.
2 On May 6, 2025, Frank Bisgiano was sworn in as Commissioner of Social Security.
Consequently, Mr. Bisgiano has been “automatically substituted as a party.” FED. R. CIV. P.
25(d). Because “[l]ater proceedings should be in [his] name,” the Court has changed the caption
of this case. Id.; see also 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (stating that such an action “survive[s]
notwithstanding any change in the person occupying the office of Commissioner of Social
Security or any vacancy in such office”).
Case 2:25-cv-00270-DHU-LF Document 24 Filed 02/18/26 Page 1 of 7

2
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) applied the correct legal standards and her decision is
supported by substantial evidence. I therefore recommend that the Court DENY Plaintiff’s
motion and AFFIRM the Commissioner’s decision.
I. Standard of Review
The standard of review in a Social Security appeal is whether the Commissioner’s final
decision3 is supported by substantial evidence and whether the correct legal standards were
applied. Maes v. Astrue, 522 F.3d 1093, 1096 (10th Cir. 2008). If substantial evidence supports
the Commissioner’s findings and the correct legal standards were applied, the Commissioner’s
decision stands, and the plaintiff is not entitled to relief. Langley v. Barnhart, 373 F.3d 1116,
1118 (10th Cir. 2004). “The failure to apply the correct legal standard or to provide this court
with a sufficient basis to determine that appropriate legal principles have been followed is
grounds for reversal.” Jensen v. Barnhart, 436 F.3d 1163, 1165 (10th Cir. 2005) (internal
quotation marks and brackets omitted).
“Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion.” Langley, 373 F.3d at 1118. A decision “is not based on
substantial evidence if it is overwhelmed by other evidence in the record or if there is a mere
scintilla of evidence supporting it.” Id. While the Court may not reweigh the evidence or try the
issues de novo, its examination of the record as a whole must include “anything that may
undercut or detract from the ALJ’s findings in order to determine if the substantiality test has
been met.” Grogan v. Barnhart, 399 F.3d 1257, 1262 (10th Cir. 2005). “‘The possibility of
drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent [the] findings from
3 The Court’s review is limited to the Commissioner’s final decision, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which
generally is the ALJ’s decision, 20 C.F.R. § 404.981, as it is in this case.
Case 2:25-cv-00270-DHU-LF Document 24 Filed 02/18/26 Page 2 of 7

3
being supported by substantial evidence.’” Lax v. Astrue, 489 F.3d 1080, 1084 (10th Cir. 2007)
(quoting Zoltanski v. F.A.A., 372 F.3d 1195, 1200 (10th Cir. 2004)).
II. Applicable Law and Sequential Evaluation Process
To qualify for disability benefits, a claimant must establish that he or she is unable “to
engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or
mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be
expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A);
20 C.F.R. § 404.1505(a).
When considering a disability application, the Commissioner is required to use a five-
step sequential evaluation process. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520; Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140
(1987). At the first four steps of the evaluation process, the claimant must show: (1) the
claimant is not engaged in “substantial gainful activity”; (2) the claimant has a “severe medically
determinable . . . impairment . . . or a combination of impairments” that has lasted or is expected
to last for at least one year; and (3) the impairment(s) either meet or equal one of the Listings4 of
presumptively disabling impairments; or (4) the claimant is unable to perform his or her “past
relevant work.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(i–iv); Grogan, 399 F.3d at 1260–61. If the
claimant cannot show that his or her impairment meets or equals a Listing but proves that he or
she is unable to perform his or her “past relevant work,” the burden of proof shifts to the
Commissioner, at step five, to show that the claimant is able to perform other work in the
national economy, considering the claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”), age,
education, and work experience. Id.
4 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1.
Case 2:25-cv-00270-DHU-LF Document 24 Filed 02/18/26 Page 3 of 7

4
III. Background and Procedural History
Plaintiff was born in 1962, has a bachelor’s degree in physics, and lives by himself in
Branson, Missouri. AR 51, 179, 238, 241.5 He has worked as a front desk associate and
supervisor, a night auditor, and a salesman. AR 81. He filed an application for Disability
Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) on April 11, 2023, alleging disability since April 7, 2019, due to
back problems (lumbar spine), circulation problems, and heart problems. AR 68. The Social
Security Administration (“SSA”) denied his claim initially and on reconsideration. AR 73, 82.
Plaintiff requested a hearing before an ALJ. AR 101. On May 1, 2024, ALJ Talia Timmins held
a hearing. AR 47. ALJ Timmins issued her unfavorable decision on July 12, 2024. AR 33.
The ALJ found that Plaintiff met the insured status requirements of the Social Security
Act through December 31, 2024. AR 28. At step one, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had not
engaged in substantial, gainful activity since April 7, 2019, his alleged onset date. Id. At step
two, the ALJ found that beginning on June 2, 2023, Plaintiff’s degenerative disc disease of the
thoracic and lumbar spine was a severe impairment. AR 29–30. At step three, the ALJ found
that Plaintiff’s severe impairment did not meet or medically equal a Listing. AR 30. Because
the ALJ found that Plaintiff’s impairments did not equal a Listing, the ALJ assessed Plaintiff’s
RFC. AR 30. The ALJ found Plaintiff had the RFC to perform light work as defined in 20 CFR
§ 404.1567(b) except the claimant can occasionally climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; and can
frequently climb ramps and stairs, kneel, crouch, crawl, and stoop. Id.
At step four, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff had no past relevant work. AR 32. At step
five, the ALJ found that no jobs existed in significant numbers in the national economy that
5 Document 11 is the sealed Administrative Record (“AR”). When citing to the record, the Court
cites to the AR’s internal pagination in the lower right-hand corner of each page, rather than to
the CM/ECF document number and page.
Case 2:25-cv-00270-DHU-LF Document 24 Filed 02/18/26 Page 4 of 7

5
Plaintiff could perform. Id. The ALJ thus found Plaintiff disabled at step five, beginning on
June 2, 2023. AR 33.
Plaintiff requested that the Appeals Council review the ALJ’s partially unfavorable
decision. AR 10. On November 5, 2024, the Appeals Council denied the request for review. Id.
Plaintiff timely filed his appeal to this Court on March 14, 2025. Doc. 1.6
IV. Analysis
Plaintiff argues that his disability began “many years before June 2, 2023” and seeks
“retro benefits” for “one year prior to [his] initial application for disability benefits in April of
2023.” Doc. 17 at 2. He argues that his degenerative disc disease occurred gradually over the
course of decades, id. at 2, and describes his work history and how it relates to his back problems
over time, id. at 2–3. He states, “I am not even asking the court to give me retro benefits dating
back to April 7, 2019 when I stopped working (the initial date of disability set by my lawyer
group and myself). I am simply asking the court to give retro benefits as to what the law allows
which is one year prior to the initial application for disability in April of 2023.” Id. at 3.
Defendant responds that the earliest medical evidence that Plaintiff provided was from
June 2023 (AR 29, 301, 304–09), which showed degenerative changes in his thoracic and lumbar
spine at that time. Doc. 19 at 5. Indeed, Plaintiff’s counsel admitted that the earliest records
began in 2023. See id. at 6. Because a medically determinable impairment “must be established
by objective medical evidence from an acceptable medical source,” and no medical source
6 A claimant has 60 days to file an appeal. The 60 days begins running five days after the
decision is mailed. 20 C.F.R. § 404.981; see also AR 11. The Appeals Council granted an
extension for thirty additional days on February 10, 2025. AR 2. Because this extension began
five days from the date on the letter (i.e., February 15, 2025), Plaintiff’s appeal was timely. See
id.
Case 2:25-cv-00270-DHU-LF Document 24 Filed 02/18/26 Page 5 of 7

6
predates June 2023, the Commissioner argues that the onset date of June 2, 2023, is appropriate.
Id.
Plaintiff responds that “it is preposterous to say that the initial day of disability is June 2,
2023” because “[f]or that to be true, I would have had to be severely injured on that day by some
kind of auto accident or major fall.” Doc. 21 at 1. Rather, he argues that because the evidence
indicates that his degenerative disc disease is a condition that developed slowly over time, he
should qualify for benefits that begin earlier than the date he first obtained medical evidence. Id.
at 2.
Plaintiff admits that no medical evidence documents his disability prior to June 2, 2023.
See id. (“The reason I did not have any medical evidence of my back issue before June 2, 2023 is
because I never even thought of getting disability until March 30, 2023 . . . .”). Certainly,
degenerative diseases take time to develop. “Where the medical evidence does not establish the
precise onset date, the ALJ may have to infer the onset date from the medical and other evidence
that describe the history and symptomatology of the disease process.” Pounders v. Berryhill, No.
1:17-cv-00465 KBM, 2018 WL 3104432, at *6 (D.N.M. June 22, 2018) (internal quotation
marks omitted). In the face of such uncertainty, however, the ALJ still must rely on the
evidence. If no medical evidence exists to support an earlier onset date, the ALJ does not err by
failing to speculate about how much earlier the disability might have developed.
On appeal, the Court’s decision is a limited one: whether the ALJ’s determination of
disability was supported by substantial evidence. It is not the Court’s job to reevaluate the
evidence and make a new decision; rather, the Court intervenes only if the ALJ made a decision
that is unsupported by substantial evidence or applied incorrect legal standards. Here, the ALJ
based her decision on the evidence in the record, which did not prove that Plaintiff was disabled
Case 2:25-cv-00270-DHU-LF Document 24 Filed 02/18/26 Page 6 of 7

7
before June 2, 2023. Even if Plaintiff’s disability began earlier, there is no evidence in the record
to suggest a potential earlier onset date. The ALJ did not err by establishing the onset date at the
earliest date reflected in the evidence.
V. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, I find the ALJ applied the correct legal standards and her
decision is supported by substantial evidence. I therefore recommend that the Court DENY
Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 17) and AFFIRM the Commissioner’s decision.
THE PARTIES ARE NOTIFIED THAT WITHIN 14 DAYS OF SERVICE of a copy of
these Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition they may file written objections
with the Clerk of the District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Written objections
must be both timely and specific. United States v. One Parcel of Real Prop., With Buildings,
Appurtenances, Improvements, & Contents, Known as: 2121 E. 30th St., Tulsa, Oklahoma, 73
F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996). A party must file any objections with the Clerk of the
District Court within the fourteen-day period if that party wants to have appellate review
of the proposed findings and recommended disposition. Failure to file timely and specific
objections will result in waiver of de novo review by a district or appellate court. Id. In
other words, if no objections are filed, no appellate review will be allowed.
____________________________________
LAURA FASHING
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-00270-DHU-LF Document 24 Filed 02/18/26 Page 7 of 7