Case Law Update: Shephard v. Bisignano — Federal Court in Florida Sends the Same SSDI Denial Back a Second Time

On August 31, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Panama City Division, reversed the Commissioner of Social Security and sent a disability insurance benefits claim back to the agency for a second time in Vincent Scott Shephard v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security, No. 5:25-cv-200-MAF. United States Magistrate Judge Martin A. Fitzpatrick, presiding on the consent of both parties, held that the administrative law judge’s decision was “not entirely supported by substantial evidence in the record and premised on proper legal principles,” citing 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1439 (11th Cir. 1997). The court ordered a remand to the ALJ and directed the clerk to enter judgment for the plaintiff. A remand is not an award of benefits; the claim returns to the agency for a new decision.

How the claim reached federal court twice

The claimant protectively filed for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits on May 27, 2022, alleging an onset date later amended to November 1, 2017. The agency denied the claim initially and on reconsideration. ALJ Andrew Dixon III held a telephonic hearing on November 9, 2022 and found the claimant not disabled on December 13, 2022, and the Appeals Council denied review on February 23, 2023.

The first trip to federal court was Shepherd v. O’Malley, No. 5:23-cv-00094-TKW-MAF, which reversed and remanded on June 18, 2024 (2024 WL 3049586, adopted at 2024 WL 3046209). The Appeals Council vacated the decision and returned the case to an ALJ. The same ALJ held a second hearing on February 18, 2025, where vocational expert John Black testified, and again found the claimant not disabled on June 6, 2025. This action followed on August 7, 2025.

Three of the four issues drew a remand

The court limited review to the four issues raised, and agreed with three.

The sit and stand limitation was never squared with the light jobs. The ALJ found the claimant could work as a router or an office helper, both light occupations, while also assigning limits on standing, walking and a sit or stand option. SSR 83-12 provides that “[i]n cases of unusual limitation of ability to sit or stand, a [vocational specialist] should be consulted to clarify the implications for the occupational base.” The court found that “ALJ Dixon failed to elicit additional testimony from the VE to clarify the implications of a sit/stand option on the occupational base,” and held that the discrepancy warranted a remand to assess whether those jobs existed in significant numbers.

The migraine records were ignored a second time. The prior remand had faulted the ALJ and the state agency reviewers for having “ignored medical records which specifically discussed the migraines and the successful and unsuccessful treatments.” This time the court wrote that “[d]espite the Court’s specific references to Plaintiff’s medical history, ALJ Dixon has again neglected to address these medical records and opinions concerning Plaintiff’s migraines,” so the residual functional capacity finding was not supported by substantial evidence. Quoting Vega v. Commissioner of Social Security, 265 F.3d 1214, 1219 (11th Cir. 2001), the court repeated that “[r]emands are required when an ALJ fails to consider properly a claimant’s condition despite evidence in the record of the diagnosis,” and grounded this remand on the ALJ’s “failure to comply with the Court’s prior order.”

The shoulder and the tinnitus went undiscussed. The record included a rotator cuff tear, degenerative changes of the acromioclavicular joint and reduced range of motion, plus testimony about difficulty reaching and typing. The court ordered the ALJ on remand to discuss how the right shoulder impairment and the tinnitus affect the residual functional capacity, while finding no further discussion of hearing loss necessary.

The one argument that failed, and why it matters

The claimant also attacked the vocational expert’s job numbers, and the court rejected that argument as untimely. Under SSR 24-3p, a represented claimant’s representative is expected to raise challenges to the expert’s testimony at the hearing, while the expert is present to answer them. Here counsel did not object to the expert’s qualifications or testimony, declined to cross-examine, and filed no post-hearing vocational evidence. Citing Valdez v. Commissioner of Social Security, 808 F. App’x 1005, 1010 (11th Cir. 2020), and Falge v. Apfel, 150 F.3d 1320, 1323 (11th Cir. 1998), the court held it was foreclosed from considering employment statistics offered for the first time on appeal.

What this means if you have a Social Security disability claim

This is one district court decision on one record, and it does not change the law or predict any other result. Still, a few practical points come out of it.

• A remand is a second chance, not a win. The case goes back to the agency for a new decision, and here that process has already run more than four years since the 2022 application.
• A prior remand order is enforceable. When a court has already identified specific records an ALJ skipped, an unexplained second omission can support another remand.
• Conditions that come and go still need to be addressed. Migraines, tinnitus and shoulder limits were all in this record, and the failure to discuss their effect on the ability to work is what unwound the decision.
• Objections to vocational expert testimony belong at the hearing. Under SSR 24-3p, questions saved for the appeal may be treated as waived.

Every disability claim turns on its own medical record, and nothing here is a prediction about any other case. For background on the appeal stages, see our Social Security disability guide.

If your Social Security disability claim has been denied, or an ALJ has issued an unfavorable decision, Louis Law Group offers a free case evaluation. Call (833) 996-7483.

Source: Memorandum Opinion and Order, Shephard v. Bisignano, No. 5:25-cv-200-MAF (N.D. Fla. Aug. 31, 2026) (ECF No. 20). The docket caption spells the surname “Shepherd”; the opinion caption spells it “Shephard.” Published September 9, 2026.