Tiffany S. W. v. Frank Bisignano, Acting Commissioner of Social Security

Tiffany S. W. · United States District Court for the District of New Jersey · January 12, 2026 · No. 2:24-cv-10656 (BRM)

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey reviewed Tiffany S. W.’s appeal from the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of Disability Insurance Benefits. The court held that the Administrative Law Judge adequately evaluated the evidence, developed the record, assessed the claimant’s past relevant work and impairments, and supported the decision with substantial evidence. The court denied the appeal and affirmed the Commissioner’s decision.

Court
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
Decision date
January 12, 2026
Docket number
2:24-cv-10656 (BRM)
Disposition
affirmed

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the ALJ erred by failing to evaluate a chiropractor's treatment plan as a medical opinion.
  2. Whether the ALJ's categorization of Plaintiff's past work and finding that she could perform past relevant work were supported by substantial evidence.
  3. Whether the ALJ adequately developed and considered the record concerning Plaintiff's obesity, hypertension, anxiety, and depression.
  4. Whether the ALJ erred by declining to fully credit Plaintiff's testimony concerning her functional limitations.

Holdings

  1. The ALJ did not err by declining to evaluate the chiropractor's prognosis and treatment plan as a medical opinion because a chiropractor is not an acceptable medical source and the submission did not assess what Plaintiff could still do despite her impairments.
  2. The ALJ's categorization of Plaintiff's prior work and determination that she could perform past relevant work were supported by substantial evidence.
  3. The ALJ adequately developed and considered the record concerning Plaintiff's obesity, hypertension, anxiety, and depression and was not required to obtain an outside expert opinion regarding each fact incorporated into the RFC determination.
  4. The ALJ did not err by declining to fully credit Plaintiff's testimony because the ALJ considered the testimony and explained that it was not entirely consistent with the medical and other evidence.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…