8th Circuit upholds denial of Social Security supplemental income for Gerald Larson, finding substantial evidence…
Gerald Larson v. Frank Bisignano
Status and record
Your position
Do you support this decision?
An advisory read. Your position on a ruling is citizen opinion; it does not form a citizen mandate and is never a legal appeal.
Civitus citizens
Take a position above to see how verified Civitus citizens are weighing in. Positions stay sealed until you have one of your own.
The Civitus brief
AI analysis
Plain English
8th Circuit upholds denial of Social Security supplemental income for Gerald Larson, finding substantial evidence supported the ALJ's decision on his mental limitations.
Why it matters
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the lower court's ruling that denied Gerald Larson's claim for supplemental security income. The court found that substantial evidence in the record supported the administrative law judge's (ALJ) decision, including how the ALJ evaluated the opinions of state agency psychological consultants. The court also found that the ALJ was not required to copy those opinions word for word into her assessment of Larson's ability to work.
Who it affects
This ruling directly affects Gerald Larson, whose SSI benefits claim remains denied. More broadly, it reflects how federal courts evaluate Social Security disability decisions, which matters to the many people who apply for SSI and whose claims involve mental health assessments.
What happens next
Current
Decision issued Jul 20, 2026
Unpublished opinion
Next
Possible rehearing
Parties can ask the same court to reconsider. Then: possible supreme court petition.
View possible path
- Decision issued Jul 20, 2026Unpublished opinion
- Possible rehearingParties can ask the same court to reconsider.
- Possible Supreme Court petitionThe Supreme Court takes only a small share of petitions.
Citizens vs Court
Civitus citizens
Sealed
Take a counted position to open the tally.
Appellate court
Decision issued
Jul 20, 2026 · Unpublished opinion
Take a position above to open the comparison.
A comparison of public sentiment with the ruling. Courts are not subject to a citizen mandate, and judges are not elected representatives.
Take action
Courts decide cases; Congress can respond with legislation. Telling your representative is the civic lever here.
Public discussion
Add a tag
Citizen opinion on this ruling, not a rehearing of the case. Similar opinions on this case can open a solution poll.
3 similar opinions open a solution poll
Loading opinions
Deeper context
Long-form analysis, legal background, and source material
Read analysisAnalysis · Source
DEEPER READ
Gerald Larson applied for supplemental security income (SSI) through the Social Security Administration and was denied. He appealed that denial, but the district court sided with the government. Larson then brought his case to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. The central question was whether the ALJ properly handled the medical evidence, specifically the opinions of state agency psychological consultants, when determining Larson's residual functional capacity (RFC). An RFC is an assessment of the most a person can still do despite their limitations, and it is a key factor in deciding disability claims. The Eighth Circuit agreed with the district court and affirmed the denial. The court explained that the ALJ's conclusion that the psychological consultants' opinions were 'generally persuasive' did not mean the ALJ had to adopt every single aspect of those opinions when building the RFC. An ALJ is permitted to accept some parts of a medical opinion and not others, and is not required to spell out how every conflicting piece of medical evidence was resolved. The court also found that the RFC's description of Larson's social interaction abilities, which limited him to a non-public work setting with only occasional interaction with coworkers, was consistent with the medical opinions and supported by substantial evidence overall. The opinion was issued as unpublished and per curiam, meaning no judge was individually identified as writing it and it carries limited precedential weight. There was no dissent noted in the opinion.
CITATION AND RECORD
Record source: CourtListener
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 25-3365 ___________________________ Gerald D. Larson lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security Administration lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ____________ Submitted: July 15, 2026 Filed: July 20, 2026 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, SHEPHERD, and JUSTIN D. SMITH, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Gerald Larson appeals the district court’s1 order affirming the denial of supplemental security income. We agree with the court that substantial evidence in the record as a whole supports the adverse decision. See Cropper v. Dudek, 136 F.4th 809, 813 (8th Cir. 2025) (standard of review). We find the ALJ properly evaluated the persuasiveness of the state agency psychological consultants’ opinions. See Austin v. Kijakazi, 52 F.4th 723, 729 (8th Cir. 2022) (finding ALJ did not improperly ignore part of medical opinion, as ALJ was free to accept some but not all of opinion, was not required to explicitly reconcile every conflicting shred of medical evidence, and properly evaluated overall persuasiveness of opinion). The ALJ’s determination that these opinions were generally persuasive did not require her to adopt verbatim all aspects of the opinions in determining Larson’s residual functional capacity (RFC), nor was the RFC determination inconsistent with those opinions. See Shaibi v. Berryhill, 883 F.3d 1102, 1107 (9th Cir. 2017) (finding no obvious inconsistency between physicians’ opinions that claimant could relate to others on superficial basis and ALJ’s determination that claimant was limited to work in non- public setting with occasional interaction with coworkers). Further, substantial evidence supported the RFC determination regarding Larson’s social interaction abilities. See Page v. Astrue, 484 F.3d 1040, 1043 (8th Cir. 2007) (RFC determination was supported by substantial evidence, including medical evidence, state agency consultants’ opinions, and claimant’s subjective statements). The judgment is affirmed. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Nancy E. Brasel, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Douglas L. Micko, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. -2-
Sources
- Official opinionPrimary record
Public record. Timeline facts only; no accusation of wrongdoing. Advisory citizen opinion does not form a citizen mandate.