govinfo:USCOURTS-mnd-0_25-cv-02629-0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA 
 
 
Charity S., 
 
Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
 
Frank Bisignano 
Commissioner of Social Security, 
 
 Defendant. 
 
 
Case No. 25-cv-02629 (ECW) 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
 
 
 
The above matter came before the Court on May 29, 2026, on Plaintiff’s Brief 
seeking an order reversing the Commissioner’s denial of benefits and remanding this 
matter to the Commissioner for further proceedings (Dkt. 15) and Defendant’s SSA Brief 
seeking an order affirming the Commissioner’s denial of benefits (Dkt. 19).  
Based on the files, records and proceedings herein, and for the reasons stated on 
the record at the May 29, 2026 Announcement of Decision, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 
1. Plaintiff’s Brief seeking an order reversing the Commissioner’s denial of 
benefits and remanding this matter to the Commissioner for further 
proceedings (Dkt. 15) is GRANTED. 
 
2. On remand, the Commissioner must: 
 
a) Revisit the finding by the Administrative Law Judge (“the ALJ”) at 
page 29 of the administrative record1 (page 6 of the ALJ’s opinion) that:  
 
The undersigned has also considered whether the ‘paragraph 
C’ criteria are satisfied. In this case, the evidence fails to 
establish the presence of the ‘paragraph C’ criteria as there is 
 
1 The Court cites to the administrative record using “R. __.” 
CASE 0:25-cv-02629-ECW     Doc. 24     Filed 05/29/26     Page 1 of 3
2 
no evidence of a need for treatment in a highly structured 
setting or only marginal adjustment. 
 
(R. 29.) 
 
In doing so, the Commissioner must consider the evidence in the record 
as a whole relating to marginal adjustment, that is, to Plaintiff’s 
adaptation to the requirements of daily life and capacity to adapt to 
changes in her environment or to demands that are not already part of 
her daily life.  See 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, § 12.00 
(G)(2)(c).  The Commissioner must also consider the variable nature of 
symptoms of mental illness.  See Mabry v. Colvin, 815 F.3d 386, 392 
(8th Cir. 2016) (“Because individuals with a mental illness may 
experience periods during which they are relatively symptom-free, their 
level of functioning can vary significantly over time.”) (citing 20 C.F.R. 
Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, § 12.00(D)).  The Commissioner must then 
explain the decision as to paragraph C2 in a manner that permits a court 
to understand the rationale, including with appropriate citations to the 
record and discussion of the evidence. 
 
b) Revisit the ALJ’s decision to discount the opinions of treating 
psychologist Cheryl Sybesma Van Noord, PhD, as to Plaintiff’s 
disassociation and memory.  In doing so, the Commissioner must 
consider the evidence in the record where Plaintiff reported 
disassociation, Plaintiff reported concerns about disassociation, and 
disassociation was documented (e.g., R. 496, R. 511, R. R. 918, R. 921, 
R. 925, R. 1020, 2620, R. 2606-07, R. 2453) and evidence in the record 
of Plaintiff’s impaired memory (e.g., R. 568-619, R. 1928-2117).  The 
Commissioner must also revisit the conclusion that: 
 
Further, while [Plaintiff] has required a range of community 
assistance from multiple angles and in multiple areas of her 
life, this support was only secured after the claimant advocated 
for herself and obtained this assistance with persistence and 
some level of organizational acumen. Indeed, her very need for 
this care shows a clear level of dysfunction, but her ability to 
marshal services on her behalf tends to show some 
resourcefulness and flexibility as well. 
 
(R. 31.) 
 
If the Commissioner continues to rely on Plaintiff’s receipt of 
“community assistance” (e.g., the assistance from Adult Rehabilitative 
CASE 0:25-cv-02629-ECW     Doc. 24     Filed 05/29/26     Page 2 of 3
3 
Mental Health Services, Nice Rooms Associate peer support services, 
Individualized Home Supports services, and Community Access for 
Disability Inclusion services), to discount Dr. Van Noord’s opinions as 
to Plaintiff’s memory limitations, the Commissioner must identify 
evidence supporting the ALJ’s conclusions as to Plaintiff’s 
“persistence,” “organizational acumen,” and “ability to marshal 
resources” other than the fact that Plaintiff receives those services. 
 
c) Revisit the weight assigned to Plaintiff’s statements concerning the 
intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of her mental health 
symptoms in view of paragraphs (a) and (b) above, as well as the record 
as a whole. 
 
d) Revisit the Residual Functional Capacity (“RFC”) in view of paragraphs 
(a), (b), and (c) above, and address whether the RFC should include the 
state agency administrative findings limiting Plaintiff to 1-2 step tasks 
and superficial interactions and Dr. Van Noord’s opinion limiting 
Plaintiff to superficial interactions, both of which the ALJ found 
persuasive (R. 34), and, if the Commissioner finds those limitations 
should not be included in the RFC, explain the reasoning. 
 
3. Defendant’s SSA Brief seeking an order affirming the Commissioner’s denial 
of benefits (Dkt. 19) is DENIED. 
 
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 
Dated: May 29, 2026 /s/ Elizabeth Cowan Wright     
ELIZABETH COWAN WRIGHT 
United States Magistrate Judge 
 
CASE 0:25-cv-02629-ECW     Doc. 24     Filed 05/29/26     Page 3 of 3

Passage view · GavelSight