Skip to content
Do It For The Caselaw
  • Decisions
  • Broadcast
  • Topics
  • About
  • Shop
  • Subscribe
Do It For The Caselaw
  • Decisions
  • Broadcast
  • Topics
  • About
  • Shop
  • Subscribe
Home / Decisions / United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit / Christopher Brad Bonham v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security
8th Cir.

Christopher Brad Bonham v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security

June 2, 2026 ·24-2999 ·Panel Decision ·Loken · By Raj Patel

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of Social Security disability benefits to a veteran with chronic neck and back problems. The court held that the administrative law judge's residual functional capacity determination was supported by substantial evidence despite the absence of a specific medical opinion on workplace functionality.

Key takeaways

  • Holding: The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment upholding the denial of Social Security disability benefits, finding the administrative law judge's residual functional capacity determination was supported by substantial evidence.
  • Standard: substantial evidence
  • Vote: Panel Decision
  • Practical effect: The decision reinforces that administrative law judges are not required to obtain a specific medical opinion on functional capacity if the administrative record contains sufficient objective medical evidence to support a residual functional capacity determination.

Background

Christopher Bonham, a veteran with a history of spinal issues, applied for Social Security disability benefits covering the period from May 2012 to December 2016. He alleged severe impairments including degenerative disk disease and cervical spondylosis. An administrative law judge denied his claim, finding he retained the residual functional capacity to perform light work and his past relevant work as an airline security representative. The district court upheld the denial, and Bonham appealed to the Eighth Circuit.

The court’s reasoning

The court reviewed the administrative law judge’s decision under the substantial evidence standard. It rejected the argument that a residual functional capacity determination requires a specific medical opinion on workplace functionality. The court noted that regulations allow reliance on all relevant medical and other evidence, including clinical examinations and diagnostic imaging. The administrative record contained over 1,700 pages of medical records and numerous physical exams showing varying degrees of strength and mobility in Bonham’s left arm. The administrative law judge properly weighed conflicting evidence, including a VA physician’s associate opinion that Bonham could not use his left arm, against other exams showing strength between 3/5 and 5/5. The court found the administrative law judge’s conclusion that Bonham could perform light work was supported by this objective evidence.

The ALJ properly assessed Bonham’s residual functional capacity based on all of the relevant medical and other evidence.

The dissent

The record here does not allow the ALJ to determine what the medical evidence actually says about Bonham’s limitations.

Kelly

What it means going forward

The decision reinforces that administrative law judges are not required to obtain a specific medical opinion on functional capacity if the administrative record contains sufficient objective medical evidence to support a residual functional capacity determination.

Civil Social Security

On this page

Background The court’s reasoning The dissent What it means going forward

Share

Related from this court

Jul 17, 2026 United States of America v. Antonio Dontez Hoffman, Jr. Jul 17, 2026 United States of America v. Andrew Jerome Bigbee Jul 17, 2026 United States of America v. Kylir Dorsey Jul 17, 2026 United States of America v. Thomas W. Pitts
Do It For The Caselaw

Just Do It For the Caselaw!

Site

  • Mission
  • The Anchors
  • Editorial Process
  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Contact

Read & Listen

  • Decisions
  • Broadcast
  • Topics
  • The Weekly Brief

Follow

© 2026 Do It For The Caselaw. Not legal advice.