Missing Hearing Testimony Can Undermine an SSDI Denial
When a Social Security disability decision relies on what a claimant said at a hearing, the record needs to let a reviewing court evaluate that testimony. A short summary may leave consequential questions unanswered—especially when the disputed testimony concerns the claimant’s ability to function at work.
In Ball v. Bisignano, No. 25-CV-1700-SCD, 2026 WL 2874687 (E.D. Wis. Sept. 24, 2026), a federal district court reversed an SSDI denial on a Social Security federal appeal and sent the claim back for further proceedings. The court did not award benefits. It concluded that the incomplete hearing record prevented confidence that the error was harmless.
A five-page log could not substitute for the hearing
The December 2021 hearing lasted more than 50 minutes. Yet the administrative record contained a five-page “Log Report” with abbreviations, incomplete sentences, and ellipses. It lacked certification that it was a true and complete transcript, and the hearing recording appeared to have been lost.
The court found a violation of the hearing-record requirements in 20 C.F.R. § 404.951. It separately explained that the partial transcript’s inclusion in the certified record meant there was no violation of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) on that ground. The distinction matters: the problem was the inadequacy of the preserved hearing record.
The court also rejected the Commissioner’s waiver or forfeiture argument under the circumstances, which included counsel having flagged the missing recording. That conclusion does not establish that every objection to an incomplete record can be raised at any time.
Why the missing testimony mattered
An incomplete record does not automatically require reversal. The court examined whether the defect was harmless and could not confidently predict that a complete record would produce the same result.
The ALJ had repeatedly relied on the December 2021 testimony, particularly when assessing social interaction. The decision found a moderate limitation and allowed occasional interaction with supervisors and coworkers, with no public interaction. The court expressed serious doubts about whether substantial evidence supported those findings.
One practical point deserves attention: cooperation during treatment in a controlled clinical setting does not necessarily show that someone can sustain workplace interactions. A claimant may manage a structured appointment yet struggle with the demands of supervisors, coworkers, or repeated interactions throughout a workday. The decision did not conclusively establish disability or require a finding of marked limitation.
What the remand requires—and what claimants can learn
The Commissioner must produce a complete, certified transcript of the December 2021 hearing or offer a new hearing, then issue a new decision supported by substantial evidence and consistent with the law. The court also directed consideration of a physician’s feet-elevation statement and all prior administrative medical findings from the state-agency psychologists.
For claimants, the useful lesson is to compare the denial’s reasoning with the actual record. If testimony is missing, explain how that gap affects a specific functional or vocational finding. Concrete examples of difficulty sustaining work activities can help clarify why the missing evidence matters.
Our related article on occasional versus superficial social interaction discusses a different issue: the frequency and depth of workplace contact.
Ball is a record-specific district court decision, not a nationwide rule guaranteeing remand. If you need help evaluating a disability denial, you may schedule an initial consultation with Feden Law Group.
This article provides general information, not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Outcomes depend on the facts and applicable law.