Rucker v. Bisignano: A Harsh Reminder About Listings

Every once in a while, the Eighth Circuit hands down a decision that’s barely a few pages long—and yet manages to say everything advocates need to remember.

Rucker v. Bisignano (Jan. 20, 2026) is one of those cases.

It doesn’t change the law. It doesn’t break new ground. But it’s a sharp reminder of just how unforgiving Listings analysis can be — and how little room there is for error once a record is thin.

Let’s take a quick look.

The Case in a Nutshell

The claimant appealed the denial of child’s disability benefits and SSI.The Eighth Circuit affirmed — across the board.

That’s it. No drama. No doctrinal twists. Just a clean affirmance grounded in the record.

And that’s exactly why the case matters.

Visual Listings: Close Isn’t Good Enough

The visual impairment argument failed for a simple reason: the evidence wasn’t there.

Here’s what the record showed:

• Corrected visual acuity: 20/40 in the better eye

• Visual field testing: None in the record

  
  

That was enough to sink the Listings argument.

The court reiterated the most obvious — and most deadly — rule in Listings cases:

The claimant must meet every criterion of the Listing.

Missing even one required objective measurement ends the analysis.

👉 This dovetails with what we see repeatedly in visual impairment cases: without complete objective testing, Listings arguments don’t survive.

Mental Listings: The Record as a Whole Still Wins

The mental impairment arguments met a similar fate.

The ALJ relied on:

• Objective mental status findings

• Therapy notes

• Medical opinion evidence

  
  

Taken together, the record supported the conclusion that the claimant’s mental impairments did not meet or medically equal a Listing.

The Eighth Circuit didn’t reweigh the evidence. Instead, it did what it almost always does:

• Looked at the record as a whole

• Asked whether substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s conclusion

• Answered yes

  
  

Once again, that was the end of the story.

👉 This is classic Eighth Circuit analysis and a reminder that Listings cases are won in development, not on appeal.

Credibility: Even an Overstatement Isn’t Always Enough

One interesting moment in the decision: the court acknowledged that the ALJ may have overstated some daily activities.

In other words, the claimant wasn’t wrong to point it out.

But it didn’t matter.

Why?

Because other substantial evidence still supported the credibility finding.

The lesson here is a familiar one:

• Pointing out an ALJ misstatement isn’t enough

• You still have to show that the error undermines the decision as a whole

  
  

Minor flaws don’t carry appeals when the rest of the record holds together.

RFC and VE Testimony: When the DOT Closes the Door

The claimant also challenged the RFC and vocational evidence.

That argument went nowhere.

• The vocational expert identified cleaner and laundry worker jobs

• There was no conflict with the DOT, including visual requirements

• The VE testimony was therefore fair game for the ALJ to rely on

  
  

Once the DOT lines up with the hypothetical, appellate courts rarely intervene.

👉 This is why unresolved DOT conflicts matter — and why DOT-consistent testimony is so hard to undo later.

Why Rucker Still Matters

This decision doesn’t rewrite disability law — but it reinforces the basics that too many cases run into headfirst.

The Core Takeaways

• Missing objective evidence kills Listings arguments

• Minor ALJ misstatements won’t win appeals

• DOT-consistent VE testimony is extremely difficult to challenge

  
  

Or put another way:

Appeals don’t fix thin records.

Listings cases are won or lost long before briefing—during development, testing, and documentation. Once a required element is missing, no amount of appellate polish can put it back.

Final Thought

Rucker v. Bisignano is short, quiet, and utterly predictable—which is exactly why it’s worth paying attention to.

If you handle Listings cases, especially those involving visual or mental impairments, this decision is a reminder to slow down, double-check the objective evidence, and make sure every required box is checked.

Because the Eighth Circuit will.

Got any questions? Schedule a consultation with us. I’m here to help. It’s a lot to take in, but we’ll get through it together. After all, navigating these waters is always easier when you’ve got someone to chat with.