Case Name in Social Security Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
EVANSVILLE DIVISION
ANGELA G.,1 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 3:25-cv-00122-MPB-CSW
)
FRANK J. BISIGNANO, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
R EPORT AND R ECOMMENDATION ON J UDICIAL R EVIEW
OF THE C OMMISSIONER’S DENIAL OF B ENEFITS
This matter is before the Honorable Crystal S. Wildeman, United States
Magistrate Judge, pursuant to an Entry Referring Matter to Magistrate Judge, to
conduct and issue a report and recommendation regarding the appropriate
disposition of this matter. (Dkt. 12). Claimant, Angela G., seeks judicial review of
the Social Security Administration’s (“SSA”) decision denying her Title II
application for a Period of Disability and Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”).
(Dkt. 1). She argues the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) committed reversible
error by declining to adopt a limitation related to fecal urgency and incontinence
and by providing an insufficient explanation for discounting Plaintiff’s reports.
(Dkt. 17 at 13). For the following reasons, the Magistrate Judge recommends the
Commissioner’s decision be AFFIRMED.
I. 	B ACKGROUND
On August 15, 2022, Claimant filed her application for DIB, alleging
disability beginning on October 15, 2020. (Dkt. 10-2 at 18). On February 13, 2023,
1 To protect the privacy interests of Claimant’s application for Social Security benefits, consistent
with the recommendation of the Court Administration and Case Management Committee of the
Administrative Office of 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-00122-MPB-CSW Document 21 Filed 02/20/26 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

-2-
Claimant’s application was denied on initial review. (Id.). On June 5, 2023, the
application was again denied on reconsideration. (Id.). Claimant sought a hearing,
which was held by telephone on December 14, 2023. (Id.). The hearing was
conducted by ALJ Jason Yoder and was attended by Claimant, her attorney, and an
impartial vocational expert. (Id.). On March 13, 2024, the ALJ rendered an
unfavorable decision. (Id. at 15). In reaching this decision, the ALJ found:
• 	At Step One, “[C]laimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity
since October 15, 2020, the alleged onset date.” (Id. at 21).
• 	At Step Two, “[C]laimant has the following severe impairments: chronic
pain syndrome, fibromyalgia, lumbar spine degenerative disc disease and
spondylosis, obesity, systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), osteoarthritis,
partial complex seizure disorder, migraine headaches not intractable,
restless leg syndrome, mild obstructive sleep apnea.” (Id.).
• 	At Step Three, “[C]laimant does not have an impairment or combination
of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of one of the
listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1.” (Id. at
24).
• 	After Step Three but before Step Four, “[C]laimant has the residual
functional capacity to perform light work as defined in 20 CFR
404.1567(b) except she can lift/carry 20 pounds occasionally and 10
pounds frequently, sit for at least 6 out of 8 hours and stand/walk for
about 4 out of 8 hours. She can never climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolding.
She can occasionally climb ramps and stairs, stoop, kneel, crouch, and
crawl, and balance. She should avoid all exposure to dangerous workplace
hazards such as exposed moving machinery and unprotected heights, and
more specifically, she should avoid driving motorized vehicles, no
Case 3:25-cv-00122-MPB-CSW Document 21 Filed 02/20/26 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

-3-
operating heavy machinery that would be a danger if she should fall
during a seizure, no work near open gears capable of pulling, pinching, or
twisting, no operating weight lifting devices which raise objects above
shoulder level, no work with open electrical circuitry, no work above 24”
above the ground, no work with open flames or heated liquid, no work
near pooled water capable of being fallen into, and finally when cooking,
use the back burners on the stove.” (Id. at 26).
• 	At Step Four, “[C]laimant is unable to perform any past relevant work.”
(Id. at 35).
• 	At Step Five, “Considering the claimant’s age, education, work experience,
and residual functional capacity, there are jobs that exist in significant
numbers in the national economy that the claimant can perform.” (Id.).
Ultimately, the ALJ concluded Claimant was not disabled as defined in the
Social Security Act. (Id. at 37). Claimant sought review by the Appeals Council,
which was denied on March 24, 2025. (Id. at 2). On May 23, 2025, Claimant
commenced this action, seeking judicial review of the ALJ’s decision. (Dkt. 1). On
November 12, 2025, Claimant filed her brief in support of her Complaint. (Dkt. 17).
On January 6, 2026, the Commissioner filed his brief in opposition. (Dkt. 18). On
February 3, 2026, Claimant filed her reply. (Dkt. 20). Thus, this matter is ripe for
review.
II. 	S TANDARD OF R EVIEW
“The Social Security Administration (SSA) provides benefits to individuals
who cannot obtain work because of a physical or mental disability.” Biestek v.
Berryhill, 587 U.S. 97, 98 (2019). Disability is the inability “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
Case 3:25-cv-00122-MPB-CSW Document 21 Filed 02/20/26 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

-4-
can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than twelve months.”
Stephens v. Berryhill, 888 F.3d 323, 327 (7th Cir. 2018) (citing 42 U.S.C. §
423(d)(1)(A)).
When an applicant appeals an adverse benefits decision, this Court’s role is
limited to ensuring the ALJ applied the correct legal standards and that substantial
evidence exists for the ALJ’s decision. Stephens, 888 F.3d at 327. “[S]ubstantial
evidence” is such relevant “evidence that ‘a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion.’” Zoch v. Saul, 981 F.3d 597, 601 (7th Cir. 2020)
(quoting Biestek, 139 S. Ct. at 1154) ; see also Bakke v. Kijakazi, 62 F.4th 1061, 1068
(7th Cir. 2023). This standard is light and deferential, requiring “only the most
minimal of articulation.” Warnell v. O’Malley, 97 F.4th 1050, 1051, 1053 (7th Cir.
2024); Pavlicek v. Saul, 994 F.3d 777, 783 (7th Cir. 2021).
“Although this Court reviews the record as a whole, it cannot substitute its
own judgment for that of the SSA by reevaluating the facts, or reweighing the
evidence to decide whether a claimant is in fact disabled.” Stephens, 888 F.3d at
327. Reviewing courts also “do not decide questions of credibility, deferring instead
to the ALJ’s conclusions unless ‘patently wrong.’” Zoch, 981 F.3d at 601 (quoting
Summers v. Berryhill, 864 F.3d 523, 528 (7th Cir. 2017)). The Court, however, does
“determine whether the ALJ built an ‘accurate and logical bridge’ between the
evidence and the conclusion.” Peeters v. Saul, 975 F.3d 639, 641 (7th Cir. 2020)
(quoting Beardsley v. Colvin, 758 F.3d 834, 837 (7th Cir. 2014)).
The SSA applies a five-step evaluation to determine whether the claimant is
disabled. Stephens, 888 F.3d at 327 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4); 20 C.F.R. §
416.920(a)(4)). The ALJ must evaluate the following, in sequence:
(1) whether the claimant is currently [un]employed; (2) whether the
claimant 	has 	a 	severe 	impairment; 	(3) 	whether 	the 	claimant’s
impairment meets or equals one of the impairments listed by the
[Commissioner]; (4) whether the claimant can perform her past work;
and (5) whether the claimant is capable of performing work in the
national economy.
Case 3:25-cv-00122-MPB-CSW Document 21 Filed 02/20/26 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

-5-
Clifford v. Apfel, 227 F.3d 863, 868 (7th Cir. 2000), as amended (Dec. 13, 2000)
(citations omitted).2 “If a claimant satisfies steps one, two, and three, she will
automatically be found disabled. If a claimant satisfies steps one and two, but not
three, then she must satisfy step four. Once step four is satisfied, the burden shifts
to the SSA to establish that the claimant is capable of performing work in the
national economy.” Knight v. Chater, 55 F.3d 309, 313 (7th Cir. 1995).
After Step Three, the ALJ must determine a claimant’s residual functional
capacity (“RFC”) by evaluating “all limitations that arise from medically
determinable impairments, even those that are not severe.” Villano v. Astrue, 556
F.3d 558, 563 (7th Cir. 2009). In doing so, the ALJ “may not dismiss a line of
evidence contrary to the ruling.” Id. The ALJ uses the RFC at Step Four to
determine whether the claimant can perform her past relevant work and, if not, at
Step Five to determine whether the claimant can perform other work. See 20 C.F.R.
§ 416.920.
If the ALJ committed no legal error and substantial evidence exists to
support the ALJ’s decision, the Court must affirm the denial of benefits. Stephens,
888 F.3d at 327. When an ALJ’s decision does not apply the correct legal standard,
a remand for further proceedings is usually the appropriate remedy. Karr v. Saul,
989 F.3d 508, 513 (7th Cir. 2021). A remand is also appropriate when the decision
is not supported by substantial evidence. Briscoe ex rel. Taylor v. Barnhart, 425
F.3d 345, 355 (7th Cir. 2005). “An award of benefits is appropriate only where all
factual issues have been resolved and the ‘record can yield but one supportable
conclusion.’” Id. (quoting Campbell v. Shalala, 988 F.2d 741, 744 (7th Cir. 1993)).
2 The Code of Federal Regulations contains separate, parallel sections concerning SSI and disability
insurance benefits (“DIB”), which are identical in most respects. Cases may reference the section
pertaining to DIB, such as in Clifford, which cites 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. 227 F.3d at 868. Generally,
a verbatim section exists establishing the same legal point with both types of benefits. See, e.g., 20
C.F.R. § 416.920. The Court will usually not reference the parallel section but will take care to detail
any substantive differences applicable to the case.
Case 3:25-cv-00122-MPB-CSW Document 21 Filed 02/20/26 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

-6-
III. 	DISCUSSION
Claimant contends the ALJ relied upon “‘patently wrong’ and non-existent
rationales” when “rejecting [Claimant’s] alleged severity and frequency of her fecal
urgency and incontinence.” Claimant further contends the ALJ failed to include a
corresponding limitation. (Dkt. 17 at 7, 13). Claimant argues these errors resulted
in an RFC unsupported by substantial evidence.
In response, the Commissioner argues the RFC was supported by substantial
evidence, Claimant failed to meet her burden of establishing a need for the specific
limitation, and the ALJ did not err in evaluating Claimant’s subjective statements.
(Dkt. 18).
As further support for her appeal, in reply, Claimant argues the
Commissioner conceded a credibility assessment was not made for fecal urgency
and frequency. Claimant also contends the ALJ erred in relying on a single visit
reporting improvement, rather than the longitudinal record, and failed to
acknowledge treatment sought. (Dkt. 20).
Regulations instruct the ALJ to evaluate limitations arising from all
medically determinable impairments, even those that are not severe, when
formulating the RFC. Villano, 556 F.3d at 563; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2). In doing
so, the ALJ must “evaluate the intensity and persistence of an individual’s
symptoms . . . and determine the extent to which an individual’s symptoms limit his
or her ability to perform work-related activities for an adult.” Soc. Sec. Ruling 16-
3p Titles II & XVI: Evaluation of Symptoms in Disability Claims, SSR 16-3P (S.S.A.
Oct. 25, 2017). A claimant’s statements are reviewed for consistency with the
evidence in the record. Id.
The ALJ addressed Claimant’s fecal urgency and incontinence in his decision.
Specifically, the ALJ evaluated the evidence and Claimant’s testimony, and
ultimately found her symptoms were minimal. (Dkt. 10-2 at 21). This was
substantiated by Claimant’s reports of a cessation of fecal urgency episodes even
when not receiving treatment. (Id.). Further, Claimant limited the impact of fecal
urgency symptoms by wearing Depends. (Id. at 22). Additionally, the ALJ noted
Case 3:25-cv-00122-MPB-CSW Document 21 Filed 02/20/26 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

-7-
“[C]laimant’s testimony regarding fecal incontinence is inconsistent with her
statements to providers.” (Id.). Inconsistency with the evidence is hardly a “non-
existent rationale[],” as Claimant contends. See SSR 16-3P; Elder v. Berryhill, 774
F. App’x 980, 984 (7th Cir. 2019) (finding “the ALJ permissibly discounted [certain]
statements because they were inconsistent with the objective medical evidence”);
Summers v. Berryhill, 864 F.3d 523, 528 (7th Cir. 2017) (finding “[t]he ALJ properly
took . . . inconsistencies into consideration when concluding that [the claimant’s]
subjective complaints of disabling limitations were ‘not entirely credible.’”).
The ALJ summarized the progress notes, finding that although there were
gastrointestinal complaints, there were no intractable symptoms and physical
exams had only minimal findings. (Dkts. 10-2 at 21; 10-7 at 2–12; 10-8 at 247–66).
The ALJ referred to the medical record showing “[Claimant] continues to have . . .
significant fecal urgency although has not had any additional episodes of fecal
incontinence.” (Dkts. 10-2 at 21; 10-8 at 248). The record was noted for showing
Claimant’s symptoms “appear to be stable with medication, dietary changes, and
surgical treatment.” (Dkts. 10-2 at 21; 10-3 at 2–25; 10-8 at 247–66).
The ALJ considered those records in tandem with conflicting testimony.
Claimant testified she continued to experience symptoms for which she sought the
aforementioned care. (Dkt. 10-2 at 63). She reported she wears Depends to protect
against accidents, which happen “at least once a day.” (Id. at 64). Claimant
reported no improvements from medication. (Id.).
In sum, the ALJ analyzed the evidence regarding Claimant’s fecal urgency
and incontinence symptoms in his Decision. The evidence included Claimant’s
statements the ALJ ultimately found inconsistent with the record. Such an
explanation satisfies the ALJ’s minimal articulation requirement, and Claimant
fails to rebut it. Thus, the Undersigned cannot conclude the ALJ committed
reversible error.
Case 3:25-cv-00122-MPB-CSW Document 21 Filed 02/20/26 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

-8-
IV. 	C ONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS the ALJ’s
decision be AFFIRMED. The ALJ properly considered Claimant’s fecal urgency
and incontinence symptoms and properly formulated Claimant’s RFC.
You are hereby notified the District Judge may reconsider any pretrial
matter assigned to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B). Any party shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service to file
written objections to this Report and Recommendation.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED this 20 th day of February 2026.
Distributed via CM/ECF to counsel of record.
Case 3:25-cv-00122-MPB-CSW Document 21 Filed 02/20/26 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>