ALJ’s Discretion in Listing Determination and Substantial Evidence Standard in Disability Claims

Introduction

This commentary examines the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Javier Guzman v. Frank Bisignano, No. 23-1912 (7th Cir. May 27, 2025). The case concerns Mr. Guzman’s claim for Social Security disability benefits based on schizoaffective disorder and related mental impairments. After two administrative denials and a district-court affirmance, the Seventh Circuit considered whether the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) erred in her Step Three Listing analysis, whether she properly evaluated the side effects of Mr. Guzman’s medications, and whether she adequately considered evidence predating the alleged onset date. The court’s decision reaffirms key principles governing an ALJ’s duty to articulate a reasoned “substantial evidence” analysis, the scope of medical expert support at Step Three, and the treatment of subjective symptoms and historical medical data.

Summary of the Judgment

The Seventh Circuit affirmed the ALJ’s denial of benefits. Key holdings include:

The ALJ was not required to obtain a new medical expert opinion specifically on Listing 12.03 where she thoroughly compared Mr. Guzman’s record against the Paragraph B and C criteria of Listings 12.03 and 12.04, and relied on uncontradicted state‐agency psychologists’ opinions.
The ALJ permissibly evaluated Mr. Guzman’s subjective complaints of fatigue and medication side effects by comparing them to objective medical evidence and then accommodated any credible work limitations in the residual functional capacity (RFC).
The ALJ satisfied her obligation to consider pre-onset evidence by discussing Mr. Guzman’s long mental-health history, including hospitalizations and earlier diagnoses, and explaining why no additional RFC limitations were warranted.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Butler v. Kijakazi, 4 F.4th 498 (7th Cir. 2021) – De novo review of district court’s disability determination and direct review of ALJ’s decision.
Wilder v. Kijakazi, 22 F.4th 644 (7th Cir. 2022) – Definition of “substantial evidence.”
Jeske v. Saul, 955 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2020) – The purpose of Step Three Listings analysis and the presumption arising when an impairment meets or equals a listing.
Ribaudo v. Barnhart, 458 F.3d 580 (7th Cir. 2006) – Requirement that an ALJ name and discuss the specific listing deficiencies to avoid a “perfunctory” analysis.
Denton v. Astrue, 596 F.3d 419 (7th Cir. 2010) – Medical diagnosis alone does not suffice to meet a listing; the ALJ must weigh all relevant evidence.
Schaaf v. Astrue, 602 F.3d 869 (7th Cir. 2010) – Speculative limitations unsupported by objective evidence do not require additional RFC accommodations.
Johnson v. Sullivan, No. 89-2269, 1990 WL 152542 (7th Cir. Sept. 24, 1990) – ALJ’s duty to consider records predating the alleged onset date.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning centers on three interrelated principles:

Substantial Evidence and Step Three Analysis: At Step Three, a claimant must show that an impairment meets all criteria of a listing. The ALJ’s role is to compare the medical record against the Paragraph A, B, and C requirements of relevant listings. Here, the ALJ expressly identified and evaluated Listings 12.03, 12.04, 12.06, and 12.08. Her discussion of Mr. Guzman’s cognitive exams, absence of delusions or paranoia in recent records, and stable response to medication demonstrated only mild-to-moderate limitations under B and C criteria. By relying on detailed record citations and the unchallenged opinions of state‐agency experts, the ALJ satisfied Ribaudo’s mandate for a non- perfunctory analysis without the need for additional expert testimony.
Evaluation of Subjective Symptoms: Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529, an ALJ must consider objective medical evidence before weighing the intensity, persistence, and effects of a claimant’s subjective complaints. The ALJ here noted Mr. Guzman’s reports of fatigue but contrasted them against treatment notes showing dosage adjustments and subsequent reports of well-controlled symptoms. She then incorporated credible limitations—restricting Mr. Guzman to routine, non-hazardous tasks—into the RFC. Absent evidence that side effects precluded all employment, the ALJ’s approach was in line with established standards.
Consideration of Pre-Onset Evidence: While Mr. Guzman urged that evidence from his 2016–2020 treatment and his prior application be given weight, the ALJ acknowledged the full medical history, including a 2010 neuroleptic malignant syndrome diagnosis and inpatient admissions, but explained why none warranted greater RFC restrictions. Because she considered and explained the relevance of earlier records, she fulfilled her duty without misweighing any evidence.

Impact

This decision reinforces several vital points for future disability adjudications:

ALJs may rely on comprehensive state‐agency medical opinions to satisfy Step Three analytical requirements, provided they identify the specific listings and articulate why the record does or does not meet each criterion.
Claimants bear the burden of producing evidence to meet each subcriterion of a listing; mere diagnoses or isolated symptoms are insufficient.
Subjective side effects must be corroborated by objective findings to justify additional functional restrictions.
An ALJ’s acknowledgment and discussion of pre-onset evidence, coupled with a reasoned explanation as to its impact on current functional capacity, will generally satisfy the requirement to consider the record as a whole.

Complex Concepts Simplified

“Substantial Evidence”: More than a scintilla but less than a preponderance; evidence that a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
“Listing of Impairments” (Step Three): A catalog of medical conditions so severe they automatically preclude substantial gainful activity if the claimant meets every specified criterion.
“Paragraphs A, B, and C”: Subsections of mental-disorder listings. Paragraph A describes medical findings; B describes functional limitations in four broad areas; C addresses “serious and persistent” disorders over time.
“Residual Functional Capacity (RFC)”: The most a claimant can still do despite limitations, expressed in terms of work-related physical and mental activities.
“Perfunctory Analysis”: An ALJ’s brief, unsupported conclusion on a listing that fails to explain why the evidence does or does not satisfy each requirement.

Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit’s decision in Guzman v. Bisignano affirms that an ALJ’s reasoned comparison of a claimant’s medical record to the detailed criteria of mental-impairment listings, bolstered by state- agency expert opinions, can satisfy Step Three without additional testimony. It also confirms that ALJs may evaluate subjective symptom allegations against objective treatment records and incorporate only those credible limitations into the RFC. Finally, the opinion underscores the importance of addressing pre-onset date evidence through thorough discussion rather than exclusion. Collectively, these principles strengthen the clarity and predictability of Social Security disability adjudications, ensuring claimants and decision- makers understand the evidentiary burdens at each stage of the five-step framework.