Michael Lincoln v. Frank Bisignano

Lincoln v. Bisignano, No. 24-2668 (7th Cir. Apr. 23, 2026) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · April 23, 2026 · No. 24-2668

Summary

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of Michael Lincoln’s applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The court held that substantial evidence supported the administrative law judge’s residual functional capacity determination, including the assessment of Lincoln’s cane use, fatigue, and the persuasiveness of a treating nurse’s opinion.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Writing for the Court
Judge Pryor; Diane P. Wood Sykes; Jackson-Akiwumi; Pryor
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Decision date
April 23, 2026
Docket number
24-2668
Procedural posture
Lincoln appealed the district court's affirmance of the Commissioner's denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income.
Standard of review
The court reviewed de novo the district court's affirmance and directly reviewed the ALJ's decision. It would reverse only if the decision was based on incorrect legal standards or unsupported by substantial evidence. The court would not reweigh evidence, resolve debatable evidentiary conflicts, determine credibility, or substitute its judgment for the ALJ's when substantial evidence supported the decision.
Precedential value
Published opinion
Parties
Michael Lincoln v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

judicial review of agency actionadministrative lawstandard of reviewappellate procedureada / disability

Practice areas

Social Security disability benefitsadministrative lawappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether substantial evidence supported the ALJ's determination that Lincoln did not require ongoing use of a cane.
  2. Whether the ALJ adequately evaluated and accounted for Lincoln's reported fatigue in determining his residual functional capacity.
  3. Whether the ALJ adequately evaluated the supportability and consistency of Nurse Alisha Jackson's medical opinion.

Holdings

  1. Substantial evidence supported the ALJ's determination that Lincoln did not require a cane on an ongoing basis.
  2. The ALJ adequately evaluated Lincoln's fatigue and logically connected the evidence to the conclusion that he could perform light work.
  3. The ALJ adequately evaluated the supportability and consistency of Nurse Jackson's opinion, and substantial evidence supported finding it only partly persuasive.

Key quotations

We will reverse the decision of an ALJ only if it is based on incorrect legal standards or unsupported by substantial evidence. (6)
Instead, the ALJ’s discussion of fatigue connects logically to the ALJ’s conclusion to “reduce” Lincoln to light work rather than find Lincoln able to work at a greater level of intensity. (9)
Because the ALJ provided a “logical bridge” from the evidence to his RFC determination, we AFFIRM. (13)

Factual background

Lincoln applied for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income, alleging disability beginning in October 2019 based principally on prostate cancer, fatigue, pain, and mobility limitations. He underwent chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, and radiation; his cancer later went into remission. The ALJ found that Lincoln had prostate cancer in remission, lumbar spondylosis, and obesity, but retained the residual functional capacity for light work with postural limitations and could return to his past work as a school bus driver. Lincoln challenged the ALJ's treatment of his cane use, fatigue, and a treating nurse's medical opinion.

Procedural history

An administrative law judge found Lincoln not disabled after determining that his residual functional capacity permitted light work with postural limitations and that he could perform his past work as a school bus driver. The Appeals Council denied further review, making the ALJ's decision the Commissioner's final decision. The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois affirmed, and Lincoln appealed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…