The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently underscored the difficulty of securing Social Security disability benefits. In Post v. Bisignano, the court affirmed the denial of benefits to a claimant whose hand, arm and shoulder impairments had required multiple surgeries.
The Aug. 28 ruling also reflects a shift from the Eighth Circuit’s historically more claimant protective approach to Social Security disability appeals, and signals that claimants seeking Social Security disability benefits may need to offer convincing proof of functional restrictions beyond their treating doctors’ opinions.
The Court’s Prior Holdings
During former Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Gerald Heaney’s nearly 40 years on the Eighth Circuit, from 1966 to 2006, the court earned a reputation for protecting the rights of Social Security claimants in several significant rulings.
In Polaski v. Heckler in 1984, a panel that included Judge Heaney held that Social Security adjudicators must give serious consideration to subjective symptoms, such as pain.[1]
In 1985, the court established a framework in Jelinek v. Heckler for evaluating pain that considers a claimant’s daily activities; the duration, frequency and intensity of the pain; precipitating factors; and medication.[2]
Then in 1990, the court held in Brown v. Sullivan that Social Security must assess the combined effects of multiple impairments, rather than evaluate each condition in isolation.[3]
Case History
In Post, however, the Eighth Circuit upheld an adverse Social Security disability determination denying Rachael Post’s claim for benefits.
Post alleged she was disabled since June 2016 due to pain, numbness and tingling in both hands. She underwent three surgeries in 2016 — on both hands and forearms, and on her left elbow and wrist. However, none of the surgeries remediated Post’s problems, and her treating physician restricted her from lifting more than five pounds.
Post was subsequently diagnosed with thoracic outlet syndrome and underwent yet another surgery that was unsuccessful in relieving her pain, numbness and complaints that her hands would lock up when she performed repetitive motions.[4]
However, Post was able to perform personal care, drive, prepare meals and do other household chores. A year after she stopped working, Post’s doctors noted some improvement, but still restricted her from performing repetitive activities and lifting, pushing or pulling more than five pounds.
In 2016, Dr. John Marshall Jung, an ophthalmologist serving as a state agency consultant, reviewed Post’s medical records for the Social Security Administration. He concluded that she could frequently lift up to 10 pounds and had no limitations in finger dexterity, reaching or handling.
Although Post’s left arm and hand later improved, the symptoms in her right arm and hand worsened, leading to another surgery. Her treating doctors continued to limit her to lifting no more than five pounds. That restriction remained in effect until August 2021 when Post returned to work as a cafeteria cashier.
An administrative law judge at the Social Security Administration considered Post’s application for benefits for a closed period of disability from June 2016 through August 2021. The ALJ found that Post could lift 10 pounds, placing her within the sedentary work classification.
At the hearing, the ALJ asked a vocational expert to assume an individual who could lift up to 10 pounds and frequently handle, reach and demonstrate finger dexterity. The expert testified that a significant number of jobs were available to such an individual, and the ALJ relied on that testimony to deny Post’s claim.
The court laid out the statutory predicate for an award of disability benefits, noting that the Social Security Act requires an inability to engage in “substantial gainful work” due to a condition lasting at least 12 consecutive months.[5]
In the Eighth Circuit’s 2016 decision in Hensley v. Colvin, the court, quoting the regulation, noted that the ALJ is required to assess a claimant’s “residual functional capacity” in order to render a determination, which is defined as “the most a claimant can do despite [their] limitations.”[6] Such a determination requires the ALJ to consider all the relevant evidence, including the medical records in the file.
Post’s primary challenge to the determination was based on an assertion that the ALJ improperly relied on Jung’s outdated opinion, and that without the state agency doctor’s opinion, there was no substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s conclusion that Post had sedentary work capacity.
The court disagreed and found no error in the ALJ’s reliance on Jung’s opinion, despite the court’s recognition of several evidentiary factors applicable to the evaluation of medical opinions, as set forth in its 2022 decision in Bowers v. Kijakazi, as follows: “(1) whether they are supported by objective medical evidence, (2) whether they are consistent with other medical sources, (3) the relationship that the source has with the claimant, (4) the source’s specialization, and (5) any other relevant factors.”[7]
The court’s rationale was that Jung’s opinion was consistent with activities that Post acknowledged she could perform, along with medical records showing normal upper extremity strength, full range of motion and normal grip strength. The ALJ also found that the treating doctors’ findings were inconsistent, and therefore less persuasive.
While Post maintained that the activities she engaged in did not establish full-time work capacity, the court disagreed, observing that she “drove, walked her dog, threw a nerf football, and frequently did housework.” Thus, the court concluded that it “was reasonable for the ALJ to find that these activities supported Jung’s conclusion that she could lift more than five pounds and undermined contrary medical opinions.”
The court also rejected Post’s argument that Jung’s findings predated additional surgeries and four more years of treatment. The court found that the opinion remained valid because of the course of Post’s recovery, and because she had regained full strength and range of motion in her shoulders. Thus, the court upheld the denial of Post’s benefits.
Key Takeaways
The Eighth Circuit’s rejection of Post’s disability claim — after she underwent several surgeries and years of treatment before she was finally able to return to work — may seem surprising. Such an extensive record of treatment is often enough to satisfactorily demonstrate a severe disability. However, judicial review of agency determinations is statutorily required to be deferential.[8]
What seems unusual in this case, though, is that the court relied on a medical opinion that was not only several years old, but also from an ophthalmologist, rather than a practitioner in a more relevant specialty. That factor alone raised a question about the weight to be accorded to the opinion.
The state agency doctor also never examined Post, unlike her treating doctors who had a lengthy, ongoing patient relationship with her, which is yet another factor the court pointed to as relevant in weighing medical opinions.
Post was a close case because there were medical findings of normal upper extremity strength and range of motion, along with evidence that the claimant performed household chores and engaged in other activities that appeared to show greater ability to use her hands than what she claimed. However, Post’s treating doctors were insistent that she could not lift more than five pounds frequently.
The Eighth Circuit’s ruling is a lesson in how difficult it is to qualify for Social Security disability benefits because of the high evidentiary bar that claimants need to meet. Further, it shows that the prior proclaimant jurisprudence from the Eighth Circuit no longer prevails.
Physical therapy records are one type of evidence that might be helpful in similar cases, since such records typically document specific limitations and would therefore have corroborated the treating doctors’ opinions.
Another potential source of evidence is a functional capacity evaluation. This testing measures specific capabilities and is typically performed by a physical or occupational therapist. It includes a standard vocational test, known as the Purdue Pegboard Test, which measures gross and fine finger, hand and arm dexterity.[9]
Functional capacity testing also includes built-in validity measures that assess the reliability of the examinee’s performance on the test and whether they are putting forth their best effort. While expensive, such testing offers objective proof of physical limitations.
Absent any testing or clinical evidence that corroborated the treating doctors’ assessment of Post’s functional capacity, there was reason to question those opinions, which is why Post’s claim was unsuccessful. Future claimants should therefore take heed of the Post ruling and make sure that the Social Security Administration receives the evidence necessary to prove disability.
[1] Polaski v. Heckler , 739 F.2d 1320 (8th Cir. 1984), later amended at 751 F.2d 943.
[2] Jelinek v. Heckler , 764 F.2d 507 (8th Cir. 1985).
[3] Brown v. Sullivan , 902 F.2d 1292 (8th Cir. 1990).
[4] Thoracic outlet syndrome is a condition involving “pressure on blood vessels or nerves in the area between the neck and shoulder” resulting in shoulder and neck pain as well as finger numbness. “Thoracic Outlet Syndrome,” available at https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/thoracic-outlet-syndrome/symptoms-causes/syc-20353988.
[5] 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A) and (d)(2)(A) (defining “disability” under the Social Security Act).
[6] Hensley v. Colvin , 829 F.3d 926, 931 (8th Cir. 2016) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1).
[7] Citing Bowers v. Kijakazi , 40 F.4th 872, 875 (8th Cir. 2022).
[8] See, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)(“The findings of the Commissioner of Social Security as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive”).
[9] See, “Purdue Pegboard Test” at https://www.sralab.org/rehabilitation-measures/purdue-pegboard-test.
Mark D. DeBofsky is a shareholder at DeBofsky Law Ltd.
This article was first published by Law360 on September 28, 2026.
