Darlene Chrisman v. Frank Bisignano
Court
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
Decided
June 10, 2025
Jurisdiction
F
Importance
48%
Case Summary
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-1898 DARLENE CHRISMAN, on behalf of N.R.C., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division. No. 1:23-cv-00046-SLC — Susan L. Collins, Magistrate Judge. ____________________ ARGUED APRIL 23, 2025 — DECIDED MAY 13, 2025 ____________________ Before HAMILTON, KIRSCH, and JACKSON-AKIWUMI, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Darlene Chrisman, on behalf of her minor granddaughter N.R.C., challenges the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her Supplemental Security Income appli- cation. We conclude that the administrative law judge’s opin- ion was properly reasoned and supported by substantial evi- dence. We therefore affirm. 2 No. 24-1898 I. In June 2022, the Social Security Administration deter- mined that N.R.C. was not disabled. Chrisman’s appeal is lim- ited to whether N.R.C.’s impairments functionally equal one of the listings of impairments in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d); 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404 P., App. 1. She asserts that the ALJ errone- ously determined that N.R.C. has “less than marked” impair- ments in the domains of “attending to and completing tasks” and “caring for yourself.” We therefore recite only the facts relevant to those domains. A. Chrisman has been N.R.C.’s guardian since N.R.C. was 18 months old. In March 2021, just after N.R.C.’s fourth birthday, Chrisman applied for supplemental security income on N.R.C.’s behalf. Chrisman alleged that N.R.C.’s disability be- gan in January 2020 and that N.R.C. suffered from a develop- mental disorder called separation anxiety disorder of child- hood, among other impairments. When N.R.C. was about three-and-a-half years old in Sep- tember 2020, a nurse practitioner referred her for counseling after Chrisman explained N.R.C.’s history of trauma and fears of abandonment. Shortly thereafter, the counseling center be- gan administering therapy and skills coaching sessions aimed at, among other things, developing skills for emotional regu- lation and healthy attachment. Records show that, on aver- age, N.R.C. met with a skills coach for about eight hours a week, split between three sessions at daycare and one session at home. In January 2021, a psychiatrist diagnosed N.R.C. with separation anxiety disorder and dissociative engage- ment disorder. In April 2021, N.R.C. was additionally No. 24-1898 3 diagnosed with reactive attachment disorder and ADHD. The doctor prescribed guanfacine, an ADHD medication, to help manage the symptoms of those disorders. During the first few months of counseling, before N.R.C. began taking medication, N.R.C. made minimal or slight pro- gress towards her behavioral goals. At times, Chrisman and the skills coach reported that N.R.C. defiantly refused to fol- low directions and regressed with her toileting skills when she urinated and defecated on herself or the floor. Records from the counseling center show that N.R.C. was more com- pliant at school than at home but still needed frequent redi- rection to stay on task. N.R.C.’s preschool teacher filled out a questionnaire in May 2021, after N.R.C. began taking medication. The teacher reported, by filling in bubbles on a standardized survey, that N.R.C. experiences a “very serious problem” following in- structions, taking turns, transitioning between tasks, and re- quires frequent redirection. The teacher elaborated that N.R.C. has a “very minimal” attention span. N.R.C. also had a “very serious problem” obeying adults and seeking atten- tion appropriately. The teacher explained that this involved “inappropriate” behavior when she is frustrated or angry. The teacher additionally noted that N.R.C.’s medication caused constipation. In the following months, notes from the skills coach showed that N.R.C. was generally making “some” or “good” progress towards her goals. There were some sessions during which the skills coach noted only “minimal” or “no” pro- gress—for example when N.R.C. urinated at school or at home “because she was mad,” or deliberately disobeyed di- rections. Notwithstanding these setbacks, by the end of the 4 No. 24-1898 summer, Chrisman told counseling center staff that “overall [N.R.C. is] doing better.” Records from providers at the coun- seling center report that N.R.C. made progress toward some goals, and minimal or no progress to
Case Details
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 10, 2025
Jurisdiction
F
Court Type
appellate
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools
Case Summary
Summary of the key points and legal principles
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
____________________
No. 24-1898 DARLENE CHRISMAN, on behalf of N.R.C., Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee. ____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division.
No. 1:23-cv-00046-SLC — Susan L. Collins, Magistrate Judge.
____________________
ARGUED APRIL 23, 2025 — DECIDED MAY 13, 2025
____________________
Before HAMILTON, KIRSCH, and JACKSON-AKIWUMI, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Darlene Chrisman, on behalf of her minor granddaughter N.R.C., challenges the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her Supplemental Security Income appli- cation. We conclude that the administrative law judge’s opin- ion was properly reasoned and supported by substantial evi- dence. We therefore affirm. 2 No. 24-1898
I.
In June 2022, the Social Security Administration deter-
mined that N.R.C. was not disabled. Chrisman’s appeal is lim- ited to whether N.R.C.’s impairments functionally equal one of the listings of impairments in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d); 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404 P., App. 1. She asserts that the ALJ errone- ously determined that N.R.C. has “less than marked” impair- ments in the domains of “attending to and completing tasks” and “caring for yourself.” We therefore recite only the facts relevant to those domains. A. Chrisman has been N.R.C.’s guardian since N.R.C. was 18 months old. In March 2021, just after N.R.C.’s fourth birthday, Chrisman applied for supplemental security income on N.R.C.’s behalf. Chrisman alleged that N.R.C.’s disability be- gan in January 2020 and that N.R.C. suffered from a develop- mental disorder called separation anxiety disorder of child- hood, among other impairments. When N.R.C. was about three-and-a-half years old in Sep- tember 2020, a nurse practitioner referred her for counseling after Chrisman explained N.R.C.’s history of trauma and fears of abandonment. Shortly thereafter, the counseling center be- gan administering therapy and skills coaching sessions aimed at, among other things, developing skills for emotional regu- lation and healthy attachment. Records show that, on aver- age, N.R.C. met with a skills coach for about eight hours a week, split between three sessions at daycare and one session at home. In January 2021, a psychiatrist diagnosed N.R.C. with separation anxiety disorder and dissociative engage- ment disorder. In April 2021, N.R.C. was additionally No. 24-1898 3
diagnosed with reactive attachment disorder and ADHD. The doctor prescribed guanfacine, an ADHD medication, to help manage the symptoms of those disorders. During the first few months of counseling, before N.R.C. began taking medication, N.R.C. made minimal or slight pro- gress towards her behavioral goals. At times, Chrisman and the skills coach reported that N.R.C. defiantly refused to fol- low directions and regressed with her toileting skills when she urinated and defecated on herself or the floor. Records from the counseling center show that N.R.C. was more com- pliant at school than at home but still needed frequent redi- rection to stay on task. N.R.C.’s preschool teacher filled out a questionnaire in May 2021, after N.R.C. began taking medication. The teacher reported, by filling in bubbles on a standardized survey, that N.R.C. experiences a “very serious problem” following in- structions, taking turns, transitioning between tasks, and re- quires frequent redirection. The teacher elaborated that N.R.C. has a “very minimal” attention span. N.R.C. also had a “very serious problem” obeying adults and seeking atten- tion appropriately. The teacher explained that this involved “inappropriate” behavior when she is frustrated or angry. The teacher additionally noted that N.R.C.’s medication caused constipation. In the following months, notes from the skills coach showed that N.R.C. was generally making “some” or “good” progress towards her goals. There were some sessions during which the skills coach noted only “minimal” or “no” pro- gress—for example when N.R.C. urinated at school or at home “because she was mad,” or deliberately disobeyed di- rections. Notwithstanding these setbacks, by the end of the 4 No. 24-1898
summer, Chrisman told counseling center staff that “overall [N.R.C. is] doing better.” Records from providers at the coun- seling center report that N.R.C. made progress toward some goals, and minimal or no progress to
Case Information
Detailed case metadata and classifications
Court Proceedings
Document Details
Legal Classification
Similar Cases
Cases with similar legal principles and precedents
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 10, 2025
Jurisdiction
F
Court Type
appellate
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools