{"id":458,"date":"2026-01-12T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-12T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=458"},"modified":"2026-01-12T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-12T12:00:00","slug":"grisso-bisignano-social-security-fibromyalgia-step-two-severe-impairment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=458","title":{"rendered":"Grisso v. Bisignano \u2014 N.D. Cal. reverses SSA disability denial, finds ALJ erred at step two on fibromyalgia severity"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Maximus Grisso v. Frank Bisignano, et al.<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
U.S. District Court \u2014 Northern District of California<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-12<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
3:24-cv-08140<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Unreported \/ Non-Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Social Security disability; 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 405(g); five-step sequential evaluation; step two severe impairment; fibromyalgia; Glanden v. Kijakazi<\/em>; Webb v. Barnhart<\/em>; de minimis screening device; date last insured<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Maximus Grisso applied for Title II Social Security Disability Insurance benefits on April 25, 2020, alleging disability before his September 20, 2019 date last insured. The SSA denied his application initially, on reconsideration, and after an October 2023 hearing before an Administrative Law Judge. The ALJ\u2019s January 2024 decision concluded that Grisso had three severe mental impairments \u2014 major depression, generalized anxiety disorder, and ADHD \u2014 but that his fibromyalgia did not rise to the level of a severe physical impairment during the relevant period. The ALJ ultimately found Grisso not disabled. Grisso sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 405(g) and moved for summary judgment.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

Judge James Donato granted Grisso\u2019s motion for summary judgment and remanded the case to the SSA for further proceedings.<\/p>\n

Reviewing under the standard articulated in Tibbetts v. Kijakazi<\/em> and Burch v. Barnhart<\/em>, the court held that the ALJ\u2019s step two finding that Grisso\u2019s fibromyalgia was not a severe impairment was not supported by substantial evidence and constituted reversible legal error. Step two of the five-step analysis under 20 C.F.R. \u00a7 416.920 is a \u201cde minimis screening device used to dispose of groundless claims\u201d under Webb v. Barnhart<\/em>. Under the Ninth Circuit\u2019s recent decision in Glanden v. Kijakazi<\/em>, an ALJ may find an impairment not severe at step two \u201conly if the evidence establishes a slight abnormality that has no more than a minimal effect on an individual\u2019s ability to work.\u201d<\/p>\n

The ALJ\u2019s step two analysis was not consistent with that standard. The ALJ stated that Grisso testified to having pain issues but did not adequately engage with the record evidence supporting fibromyalgia as a severe impairment, nor did the ALJ apply the proper de minimis filter. Because the step two error was not harmless, remand was required without the court needing to reach Grisso\u2019s other arguments.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n