Case Law Update: Tardino v. Bisignano — Florida Federal Court Affirms SSI Denial Over Frequent vs. Occasional Hand Use

What happened

On October 28, 2026, a United States magistrate judge in the Southern District of Florida affirmed the Social Security Administration’s denial of supplemental security income (SSI) in Matthew Tardino v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security, No. 0:26-cv-60995 (Fort Lauderdale). The court held that substantial evidence supported the administrative law judge’s (ALJ’s) finding that Mr. Tardino could “frequently” handle objects with his right hand, and that the ALJ properly found a consultative examiner’s more restrictive opinion unpersuasive. The Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Yeney Hernandez, denied Mr. Tardino’s motion for summary judgment, granted the Commissioner’s, and closed the case.

The claim and why one word decided it

According to the Order, Mr. Tardino applied for SSI on August 31, 2022, alleging disability beginning May 1, 2019, based on vision problems, wrist and hand problems, a sleep disorder, migraines, fatigue, depression, and memory problems. The agency denied the claim initially on February 6, 2024, and on reconsideration on November 19, 2024. After a telephonic hearing at which he was represented by counsel, the ALJ denied the claim, and the Appeals Council denied review on February 4, 2026.

The appeal focused on his right wrist, injured in a 1992 car accident. The ALJ found he could do light work with limits, including that he could “frequently” handle with his right upper extremity. At the hearing, a vocational expert testified that a person who could frequently handle could work as a mail clerk, laundry sorter, or hand washer, but that no jobs existed for someone who could only “occasionally” handle with the right hand. As the court put it, “the determining factor as to Plaintiff’s disability status was whether he could ‘frequently’ or ‘occasionally’ handle with the right upper extremity.”

Why the court affirmed

Mr. Tardino relied on a consultative examination by Dr. Roderick Santa Maria, who noted limited rotation of the right wrist and scarring, and on an October 25, 2024 x-ray showing a healed-fracture deformity and mild to moderate joint narrowing. He argued this evidence supported a limit to occasional handling.

The court disagreed for several reasons stated in the Order:

• The rest of the exam was largely normal. The same consultative exam recorded normal dexterity for small objects, the ability to make a full fist and touch each fingertip to the thumb, and 5/5 grip strength, although the court noted the report was internally inconsistent, also listing right-hand grip as 4/5.
• Treatment notes were silent. The ALJ relied partly on the fact that Mr. Tardino’s primary care notes included no complaints or exam findings about his right hand, even though he had worked consistently as a retail stocker after the 1992 accident.
• The opinion was conclusory. The court found the examiner’s forms did “very little to justify his conclusions,” left one explanation section blank, and, quoting an earlier Southern District decision, described “the what” of the opinion while saying “nothing about the how.”
• Pointing to helpful evidence is not enough. Under the substantial-evidence standard, the court said a claimant “must show the absence of substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s conclusion,” not merely identify records that support a more restrictive limit.

The court also noted procedural points. Arguments mentioned only in passing, such as mood and cognitive issues, were treated as abandoned because they were not developed. And because Mr. Tardino challenged only the “supportability” of the examiner’s opinion, not the ALJ’s “consistency” analysis under 20 C.F.R. § 416.920c, the court did not need to reach consistency.

What this means if you have a Social Security disability claim

This is one non-binding district-court decision, and every claim turns on its own record. It does not predict how any other case will come out. Still, it illustrates several practical points:

• Know where the vocational line falls. In many hand-use cases the difference between “frequent” and “occasional” handling or fingering can decide whether any jobs remain. Listen closely to the vocational expert’s answers at the hearing.
• Report symptoms to your treating doctors. Here, the absence of hand complaints in primary care records weighed against the claimant. If a condition affects your daily function, tell your providers so it appears in your treatment notes.
• Explained opinions carry more weight. An opinion that ties each limitation to specific exam findings, imaging, or test results is harder to set aside than a checkbox form with blank explanation fields.
• Raise every issue fully on appeal. Issues mentioned in passing may be treated as abandoned, and an unchallenged part of the ALJ’s analysis may go unreviewed.

A federal lawsuit challenging a final Social Security decision generally must be filed within 60 days after the Appeals Council’s notice under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). For an overview of the appeals process, see our Social Security disability guide. More rulings are collected on our Case Law & Industry Insights page.

If your disability claim was denied, Louis Law Group offers a free case evaluation.

Source: Order on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 10, Tardino v. Bisignano, No. 0:26-cv-60995 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 28, 2026). This article summarizes a court ruling for general information and is not legal advice. Last updated November 4, 2026.