Case Law Update: Davis v. Bisignano, Federal Court Reverses an SSDI Denial Over an Unexplained Two-Step Task Limit

Updated September 12, 2026. On September 10, 2026, a federal court in the Middle District of Florida reversed the Social Security Administration's denial of disability insurance benefits to Toni Davis and sent her case back to the agency for a third time. The case is Davis v. Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security, No. 2:25-cv-694-JRK (M.D. Fla.), filed August 6, 2025 and decided by a United States Magistrate Judge on the parties' consent. The court held that the administrative law judge's explanation of two state agency psychological opinions was so internally contradictory that it could not tell whether the denial rested on substantial evidence, and ordered the agency to reevaluate those opinions on remand.

What the ALJ wrote, and why it did not survive review

Ms. Davis applied for disability insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income on November 7, 2018, later amending her onset date to October 31, 2017. Two non-examining state agency psychological consultants reviewed her file: Julie Bruno, Psy.D., on April 26, 2019, and Eric Wiener, Ph.D., on February 19, 2020. Both concluded she "can engage in two step tasks."

In the May 12, 2025 decision under review, the ALJ first called the state agency psychological opinion "persuasive," then wrote that the claimant "is no more less [sic] limited than assessed," then described one provider's findings as showing "normal more than moderate [sic] psychiatric limitations," and finally called the opinion "partially persuasive." The residual functional capacity the ALJ assigned allowed simple instructions and simple work-related decisions, and at step five the ALJ identified price marker, routing clerk, and small parts assembler jobs, all carrying a General Educational Development reasoning level of 2, which permits detailed but uninvolved instructions. So the RFC was less restrictive than the two-step limit the consultants described, while the ALJ's narrative said the claimant was "more limited than assessed."

The court's conclusion: "The ALJ's analysis of these psychological opinions leaves judicial review frustrated such that reversal and remand for reconsideration are necessary." The Commissioner defended the decision by arguing that the word "more" was a scrivener's error and that the ALJ meant "less." The court declined, writing that "essentially, Defendant contends the Court should find 'more' means 'less.' Even if the Court were inclined to do so (it is not), the remaining issues with the ALJ's analysis and the ALJ's election not to address the specifics of the consultants' 'two step tasks' findings leave the Court unable to determine whether the ALJ's Decision is supported by substantial evidence."

The ruling rests on the articulation rules at 20 C.F.R. sections 404.1520c and 416.920c, which apply to claims filed on or after March 27, 2017 and make supportability and consistency the two factors an ALJ must explain. Those rules replaced the Eleventh Circuit's treating physician rule, as that court held in Harner v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner, 38 F.4th 892, 896 (11th Cir. 2022). The court also cited an unpublished 2023 Eleventh Circuit decision for the proposition that when an assigned RFC conflicts with a medical opinion the ALJ found generally persuasive, "the absence of a clear explanation violates SSR 96-8p and constitutes reversible error."

A partially favorable decision is still a denial

The posture matters. The ALJ found Ms. Davis not disabled before January 18, 2024 and disabled from that date forward, when her age category changed to advanced age and the Medical-Vocational Guidelines directed a finding of disability. Because she was last insured for disability insurance benefits on December 31, 2017, her SSI claim was granted with an onset date of January 18, 2024 while her DIB claim was denied outright. That is what a partially favorable decision often looks like: benefits under one program, nothing under the other.

This was also the third federal appeal in the same claim. The court remanded twice before on the Commissioner's own unopposed motions, on December 20, 2021 and April 11, 2024, with Appeals Council remands and new hearings in between. Nearly eight years elapsed between the November 2018 applications and this order.

What this means if you have an SSDI or SSI claim

This is one district court order, not binding appellate precedent, and nothing here predicts a result in any other claim. A few practical points follow from what the court did.

• Read the state agency consultants' findings closely, not just the bottom line. The error was not that the ALJ rejected the consultants. It was that the ALJ called their opinion persuasive and then built an RFC less restrictive than what they described, without explaining the gap. A limitation buried in a form, such as a two-step task limit, can be the difference between a reasoning level 1 and a reasoning level 2 job base.
• Watch the date last insured. If your insured status ended years before the period the agency finds you disabled, a favorable SSI finding does not fix the DIB claim. The onset date the agency establishes is worth reviewing carefully.
• A remand is not an award. The court expressly declined to direct an award of benefits, applying Davis v. Shalala, 985 F.2d 528, 534 (11th Cir. 1993), under which courts reverse for an award only when the cumulative evidence establishes disability without any doubt. The claim goes back to the agency for a new decision.
• Unaddressed arguments are not lost. Having remanded on the first issue, the court did not reach the claimant's three other arguments and instructed the agency to address them if necessary.

Deadlines in Social Security appeals are short and generally run from the agency's notice date, so a denial or a partially favorable decision is worth having reviewed promptly. Our Social Security disability guide explains how the appeal levels fit together, and other case summaries are on the Case Law and Industry Insights page. For a free review of a Social Security disability denial, contact Louis Law Group.

Source: Opinion and Order, Davis v. Bisignano, No. 2:25-cv-694-JRK (M.D. Fla. Sept. 10, 2026), ECF No. 19. General information, not legal advice about any specific claim.