Kohan, Michelle v. Bisignano, Frank

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
MICHELLE L. KOHAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
FRANK J. BISIGNANO,1
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
OPINION and ORDER
23-cv-747-jdp
Plaintiff Michelle L. Kohan seeks judicial review of a final decision of defendant Frank
J. Bisignano, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, finding that Kohan was not
disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. Kohan contends that administrative
law judge (ALJ) Ahavaha Pyrtel failed to adequately account for Kohan’s mental limitations
when the ALJ determined her residual functional capacity (RFC). The ALJ’s decision is
supported by substantial evidence, and Kohan has not identified any legal errors in the
decision, so the court will affirm the decision.
BACKGROUND
Kohan applied for disability benefits, alleging that she had been disabled since February
2, 2018. R. 128.2 Her claim was denied at the initial level and on reconsideration. Id. Kohan
requested a hearing before an ALJ. Id. The ALJ found that Kohan suffered from severe physical
1 The court has amended the caption to reflect Frank J. Bisignano’s appointment as
Commissioner. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).
2 Record cites are to the administrative transcript located at Dkt. 3. Citations to other filings
use the page numbers assigned by CM/ECF, not the page numbers in the original document.
Case: 3:23-cv-00747-jdp Document #: 16 Filed: 01/16/26 Page 1 of 8

2
and mental impairments. R. 131. The physical impairments are not relevant to this appeal, so
it is not necessary to consider those. See Dkt. 7, at 5. Kohan’s severe mental impairments are
anxiety disorder and depressive disorder. R. 131. The ALJ ascribed to Kohan the RFC to
perform light work with additional limitations. R. 133. To account for Kohan’s mental
impairments, the ALJ limited Kohan to simple, routine, and repetitive tasks, with only
occasional changes in work setting. R. 137. Relying on the testimony of a vocational expert,
the ALJ found that Kohan could not perform any of her past relevant work, but that she was
not disabled because she could perform jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national
economy, such as cleaner/housekeeper. See R. 139–40.
Kohan now appeals to this court. On appeal, the court’s role is to review the ALJ’s
decision for legal errors and to determine whether the decision is supported by substantial
evidence. See Martin v. Saul, 950 F.3d 369, 373 (7th Cir. 2020). The substantial evidence
standard is not high and requires only “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. (citation omitted). But the ALJ’s decision must
identify the relevant evidence and build a “logical bridge” between that evidence and the final
determination. Moon v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 718, 721 (7th Cir. 2014).
ANALYSIS
Kohan contends that the ALJ failed to adequately accommodate Kohan’s mental
limitations in her RFC assessment. Specifically, Kohan argues that the ALJ did not explain how
she addressed the state agency consultant’s findings that Kohan had (1) a moderate limitation
in concentrating, persisting, or maintaining pace; and (2) a mild limitation in interacting
with others.
Case: 3:23-cv-00747-jdp Document #: 16 Filed: 01/16/26 Page 2 of 8

3
An ALJ’s RFC assessment must account for all limitations supported by the medical
record. Yurt v. Colvin, 758 F.3d 850, 857 (7th Cir. 2014). ALJs are not required to use “magic
words” in their RFC assessment, Crump v. Saul, 932 F.3d 567, 570 (7th Cir. 2019), but they
must “say enough to enable a review of whether the ALJ considered the totality of a claimant’s
limitations,” Lothridge v. Saul, 984 F.3d 1227, 1233 (7th Cir. 2021).
A. Limitations in maintaining concentration, persistence, or pace
Kohan contends that the ALJ’s RFC assessment did not include all her limitations
related to concentration, persistence, or pace. See Dkt. 7, at 12–17. Kohan cites the opinion of
the state agency psychological consultant at the reconsideration level, Dr. Nicole Robicheau,
to support her contention. See R. 191–211. The ALJ determined that Dr. Robicheau’s opinion
was 	persuasive 	and 	consistent 	with 	the 	evidence. 	See 	R. 	138.3 	The 	ALJ 	“re-phrased
[Dr. Robicheau’s opinion] . . . in more vocationally specific terms,” id., and she ultimately
concluded that Kohan was limited was limited to “simple, routine and repetitive tasks,” R. 137.
Kohan does not challenge the ALJ’s decision to adopt Dr. Robicheau’s opinion, but Kohan
argues that, in translating Dr. Robicheau’s opinion, the ALJ did not address some of Kohan’s
limitations. See Dkt. 7, at 12–17. To determine whether the ALJ’s conclusion is supported by
substantial evidence, the court turns to Dr. Robicheau’s opinion.
3 The ALJ determined that the opinion of the state agency psychological consultant at the
initial level was not persuasive because it was not consistent with the evidence. R. 138. The
consultant at the initial level found that Kohan had a mild limitation in the category of
concentration, persistence, or pace, R. 183, but the ALJ concluded that the evidence supported
moderate limitations in the category, R. 132. The ALJ also determined that the opinion of a
psychological consultative examiner was not persuasive and not consistent with the evidence
because Kohan was noted to have no memory problems after extensive testing. R. 138. Kohan
does not object to the ALJ’s assessment of these two opinions.
Case: 3:23-cv-00747-jdp Document #: 16 Filed: 01/16/26 Page 3 of 8

4
Two portions of Dr. Robicheau’s opinion are relevant to Kohan’s appeal: the Psychiatric
Review Technique section, and the Mental Residual Functional Capacity Assessment section.
In the Psychiatric Review Technique section of her opinion, Dr. Robicheau addressed broad
categories of mental function. Dr. Robicheau found that Kohan was moderately limited in her
ability to concentrate, persist, or maintain pace. R. 200. In the Mental Residual Function
Capacity Assessment portion of her opinion, Dr. Robicheau identified Kohan’s limitations in
more detail. In this section, Dr. Robicheau found that Kohan had sustained concentration and
persistence limitations. R. 206. Specifically, Dr. Robicheau found that Kohan was moderately
limited in her ability to (1) maintain attention and concentration for extended periods;
(2) complete a normal workday and workweek without interruptions from her mental
impairments, and perform at a consistent pace without an unreasonable number and length of
rest periods; and (3) respond appropriately to changes in the work setting. R. 207–08.
Critical details of Dr. Robicheau’s findings are in the narrative explanation of her
findings. There, Dr. Robicheau wrote:
Based only on record review, the evidence suggests symptoms are
partially consistent with allegations as the above [medically
determinable impairments] are established but [the activities of
daily living] and objective findings do not suggest [Kohan] is
precluded from all work. [Kohan] is able to persist at tasks that
can be learned in one to three months on the job (toward the
middle of this range.) [Kohan] is capable of adapting to a routine
and predictable work environment, recognizing typical hazards,
traveling to routine locations, and setting goals independently
within the framework noted above.
R. 209.
The ALJ’s finding that Kohan was limited to simple, routine, and repetitive tasks maps
directly onto Dr. Robicheau’s narrative explanation. Dr. Robicheau found that Kohan
(1) could perform “tasks that can be learned in one to three months on the job” (simple tasks);
Case: 3:23-cv-00747-jdp Document #: 16 Filed: 01/16/26 Page 4 of 8

5
(2) was “capable of adapting to a routine . . . work environment” (routine tasks); and (3) was
“capable of adapting to a . . . predictable work environment” (repetitive tasks). Id. The ALJ’s
conclusion that a restriction to simple, routine, and repetitive tasks would address Kohan’s
limitations in maintaining concentration, persistence, or pace is supported by substantial
evidence.
Kohan resists this conclusion. She contends that the ALJ failed to account for the
limitations 	in 	the 	Psychiatric 	Review 	Technique 	section 	of 	Dr. 	Robicheau’s 	opinion.
Specifically, Kohan contends that Dr. Robicheau found that Kohan was limited in her ability
to multitask and perform work accurately. Dkt. 7, at 12. Kohan quotes this passage from
Dr. Robicheau’s report:
[Kohan’s] conditions limit her ability to work—she has anxiety
about job performance as she cannot multitask [at] a level that
employers expect. No longer confident about [the] accuracy of
work due to trouble focusing on tasks [and] losing thoughts and
words make communication with others challenging.
Id. (quoting R. 201). Kohan’s argument is not persuasive because the quoted passage does not
reflect any findings by Dr. Robicheau; it is simply a close paraphrase of Kohan’s description of
her own symptoms.
The quoted passage is from the additional explanation in the Psychiatric Review
Technique section of Dr. Robicheau’s opinion. Here’s the quoted passage in its context:
ALLEGATIONS: Depression; anxiety; stress; ptsd; lymphatic
issues – especially in legs; back and leg pain upon standing longer
than 2-4 hours;
[Kohan’s] conditions limit her ability to work—she has anxiety
about job performance as she cannot multitask [at] a level that
employers expect. No longer confident about accuracy of work
due to trouble focusing on tasks & losing thoughts and words
make communication with others challenging. Because of her
back, hips, leg and feet, pain and circulation, she cannot stand,
Case: 3:23-cv-00747-jdp Document #: 16 Filed: 01/16/26 Page 5 of 8

6
walk or sit (in unreclined position) for extended periods of time
and the amount of time varies depending on the activity done the
day 	before 	& 	the 	unpredictability 	of 	what 	aggravates 	my
conditions. My allergies also put some restrictions on activities.
Ulcerative colitis results in multiple urgent trips to bathroom.
[Kohan] 	handles 	her 	personal 	care 	without 	any 	problems.
[Kohan] prepares her own meals. [Kohan] does laundry, vacuums,
does dishes, some gardening, mow if necessary. [Kohan] goes
outside daily. [Kohan] walks, drives a car, or rides in a car when
going out. [Kohan] shops in stores and by computer. [Kohan] is
able to manage money. [Kohan] spends time with others on the
phone and texting.
[Kohan’s] allegations are partially consistent with evidence in file.
[The medical evidence of record] establishes impairments under
listings 12.04 & 12.06 exacerbated by her physical condition.
Evidence 	reflects 	[prescriptions 	and 	treatments] 	for 	above
psychiatric 	impairments. 	[The 	medical 	evidence 	of 	record]
indicates her mental processes remain largely intact. No observed
or reported perceptual disturbances, formal thought disorder, or
psychiatric admissions. [Kohan] is independent in self-care and
capable of routine [activities of daily living]. The totality of the
evidence 	indicates 	[Kohan’s] 	psychological 	symptoms 	and
impairments do not meet or equal a listing and would not
preclude her from all work-related activities. This is consistent
with 	the 	initial 	review. 	See 	[Mental 	Residual 	Functional
Capacity] for functional ratings.
R. 201. The first paragraph of this excerpt contains the heading “ALLEGATIONS.” But both
the first and second paragraphs are summaries of Kohan’s self-reported symptoms. The court
reaches this conclusion for three reasons.
First, as Kohan acknowledges, see Dkt. 7, at 13, the cited portion of Dr. Robicheau’s
opinion quotes some of Kohan’s own language. Compare the second paragraph of Dr.
Robicheau’s additional explanation to this excerpt from Kohan’s own function report:
I have anxiety, about [my] job performance as I cannot multitask
at a level that employers expect. No longer confident about
accuracy of work due to trouble focusing on tasks & losing
thoughts 	and 	words 	make 	communication 	with 	others
challenging. Because of my back, hips, leg and feet pain and
circulation I cannot stand, walk or sit (in unreclined position) for
Case: 3:23-cv-00747-jdp Document #: 16 Filed: 01/16/26 Page 6 of 8

7
extended 	periods 	of 	time 	and 	the 	amount 	of 	time 	varies
depending 	on 	the 	activity 	done 	the 	day 	before 	[and] 	the
unpredictability of what aggravates my conditions. My allergies
also put some restrictions on activities. Ulcerative colitis results
in multiple urgent trips to bathroom per day.
R. 447 (cleaned up). The two excerpts are materially indistinguishable.
Second, Dr. Robicheau uses the word “my” in this section of her opinion. For example,
she states: “[Kohan] cannot stand, walk or sit (in unreclined position) for extended periods of
time and the amount of time varies depending on . . . the unpredictability of what aggravates
my conditions. My allergies also put some restrictions on activities.” R. 201. Obviously,
Dr. Robicheau is not recounting her own symptoms.
Third, if Dr. Robicheau were adopting Kohan’s language verbatim and making findings
about her limitations, there would be no need for her to note at the beginning of the third
paragraph that Kohan’s allegations are not fully supported by the evidence. But Dr. Robicheau
states: “[Kohan’s] allegations are partially consistent with evidence in file.” Id.
The court concludes that Dr. Robicheau did not find that Kohan suffered from any
limitation in her ability to multitask and perform work accurately. Thus, the ALJ did not err in
failing to include these limitations in Kohan’s RFC.
B. Limitation in interacting with others
Kohan contends that the ALJ also did not adequately account for Kohan’s mild
limitation in interacting with others. See Dkt. 7, at 17–18. Kohan says that Dr. Robicheau
found that she had lapses in her communication ability, and the ALJ’s RFC assessment did not
address those limitations. See id. Kohan does not cite any evidence in the record to support her
contention. In fact, neither of the state agency psychological consultants found that Kohan
Case: 3:23-cv-00747-jdp Document #: 16 Filed: 01/16/26 Page 7 of 8

8
had a limitation in interacting with others. See R. 183, 200. Dr. Robicheau explicitly found
that Kohan did not have social interaction limitations. R. 208.
If Kohan is arguing that Dr. Robicheau found that she “los[es] thoughts and words
mak[ing] communication difficult,” Dkt. 7, at 12, her argument fails for the same reason as
her argument about concentration, persistence, and pace: Kohan cites the portion of Dr.
Robicheau’s opinion that summarizes Kohan’s self-reported symptoms. Kohan cannot rely on
that portion of Dr. Robicheau’s opinion to support a finding about Kohan’s mental limitations.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that: the decision of the commissioner is AFFIRMED. The clerk of
court is directed to enter judgment and close the case.
Entered January 15, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge
Case: 3:23-cv-00747-jdp Document #: 16 Filed: 01/16/26 Page 8 of 8