govinfo:USCOURTS-insd-3_25-cv-00122-1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 
EV ANSVILLE DIVISION 
 
ANGELA G., ) 
 ) 
Plaintiff, ) 
 ) 
v. ) No. 3:25-cv-00122-MPB-CSW 
 ) 
FRANK J. BISIGNANO Commissioner of Social 
Security, 
) 
) 
 
 ) 
Defendant. ) 
 
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION 
 
Claimant Angela G. appeals the Social Security Administration's decision denying her 
application for disability insurance benefits. This matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge, 
who recommended that the Commissioner's decision be affirmed. (Docket No. 21). Claimant 
filed a written objection, (Docket No. 22), to the Magistrate Judge's Report and 
Recommendation. For the following reasons, the Court OVERRULES Claimant's Objection, 
(Docket No. 22), and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's recommended disposition, (Docket No. 
21). 
In August 2022, Claimant filed an application for Title II Disability Insurance Benefits. 
(Docket No. 10-2 at ECF p. 18). Her application was denied. (Id.). Claimant requested a hearing, 
and the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) held one. (Id.). The ALJ received evidence and heard 
testimony from Claimant and others. (Id. at ECF pp. 18–19). The ALJ followed the five-step 
evaluation process and concluded that Claimant was not disabled. (Id. at ECF p. 19). The ALJ 
determined that Claimant had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since her alleged 
disability onset date, that she had several severe impairments, including chronic pain syndrome, 
fibromyalgia, and obesity (but not fecal urgency or incontinence), that she did not have an PageID #:
<pageID>
2 
 
impairment or combination of impairments that met or equaled the severity of one of the 
statutorily defined impairments, that she has a Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) to do light 
work with limitations on carrying, sitting, standing, and other movements, that she is unable to 
perform any past relevant work, and that there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the 
national economy that she can perform. (Id. at ECF pp. 21–35). Plaintiff sought review of the 
ALJ's decision, which the Appeals Council denied. (Id. at ECF pp. 2–4). Claimant then sought 
judicial review of the Commissioner's decision. (Docket No. 1). 
On judicial review, an ALJ's factual findings "shall be conclusive" if supported by 
"substantial evidence." 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Substantial evidence means "such relevant evidence 
as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Gedatus v. Saul, 994 
F.3d 893, 900 (7th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted). The ALJ's decision must "reflect[] an adequate 
logical bridge from the evidence to the conclusions." Id. The Court may not reweigh the 
evidence or substitute its judgment for the ALJ's. Id. Written objections to a magistrate judge's 
recommended disposition of a dispositive motion are reviewed de novo. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 
Claimant argues that the ALJ erroneously assessed her RFC, the most she can work 
despite her limitations, Jarnutowski v. Kijakazi, 48 F.4th 769, 773 (7th Cir. 2022), because he 
relied on "wrong" and "non-existent" grounds to reject Claimant's testimony about the severity of 
her fecal urgency and incontinence, (Docket No. 17 at ECF p. 7). The "wrongs" the ALJ 
supposedly committed in evaluating the evidence of these impairments was failing to accept 
wholeheartedly Claimant's testimony about their severity, and failing to assign more weight to 
her testimony than the other evidence. But the ALJ was not required to do so. Cass v. Shalala, 8 
F.3d 552, 555 (7th Cir. 1993); Summers v. Berryhill, 864 F.3d 523, 528 (7th Cir. 2017); 
Catherine D. v. O’Malley, No. 4:23-cv-79, 2024 WL 4002574, at *7–8 (S.D. Ind. Aug. 30, 2024). PageID #:
<pageID>
3 
 
The ALJ indeed considered Claimant's testimony, as he was required to do, 20 C.F.R. § 
404.1529(c)(1), but found her testimony inconsistent with the other evidence, including 
statements Claimant gave to medical providers, (Docket No. 10-2 at ECF pp. 21–22). The ALJ 
found that physical exams of Claimant yielded "minimal findings" on her gastrointestinal 
complaints, and he observed that Claimant said her fecal incontinence had abated even without 
treatment. (Id. at ECF p. 21). Moreover, Claimant's testimony about the severity of her 
incontinence was "inconsistent" with what she told her medical providers. (Id. at ECF p. 22). 
And although Claimant continued to experience some fecal urgency, it was "unclear how 
frequent[ly]" this occurred, and, at any rate, Claimant wore Depends to guard against accidents. 
(Id. at ECF pp. 21–22). So, the ALJ built a logical bridge between these findings and his RFC 
assessment. Gedatus, 994 F.3d at 900. The ALJ's rationales were neither "wrong" nor "non-
existent." 
Nor did the ALJ ignore Claimant's testimony about her fecal urgency. (See Docket No. 17 
at ECF pp. 11–13). He considered that testimony but concluded it did not warrant the bathroom-
breaks RFC limitation that Claimant requested, as Claimant's urgency was of "unclear" 
frequency, "stable with medication, dietary changes, and surgical treatment," and managed by 
wearing Depends to address her claimed once-a-day accident. (Docket No. 10-2 at ECF pp. 21–
22). The ALJ's evaluation of Claimant's symptoms testimony will be reversed only if it "lacks 
any explanation or support," and his evaluation lacks neither. Elder v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 408, 413–
14 (7th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). PageID #:
<pageID>
4 
 
The Court therefore ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's recommended disposition. (Docket 
No. 21). Claimant's Objection, (Docket No. 22), is OVERRULED. The Commissioner's 
decision is AFFIRMED. Final judgment shall issue by separate entry. 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 
Dated: May 28, 2026 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Served electronically on all ECF-registered counsel of record. PageID #:
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight