Morrow v. Bisignano: Credibility and Medical Opinion Review

In Morrow v. Bisignano, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the ALJ’s denial of disability benefits, but the opinion offers a lot for disability attorneys to unpack, especially when it comes to evaluating medical opinions and claimant credibility.

🩺 The Medical Opinion DisputeMorrow’s treating physician, Dr. Alia, opined that he couldn’t sit or stand for a full workday and needed frequent breaks. But the ALJ rejected this based on two key factors:

1. Supportability: Dr. Alia’s own records didn’t show the type of extreme limitations he later assessed (no gait issues, normal strength, normal range of motion).

   
   

2. Consistency: No other physicians—including consulting examiners—supported Dr. Alia’s restrictive assessment. The ALJ found Dr. Gordon’s less limiting opinion more consistent with the overall record.

   
   

The Ninth Circuit upheld this rejection, citing Woods v. Kijakazi and Stiffler v. O’Malley as authority for discounting conclusory opinions unsupported by objective findings.

🧍 Symptom Testimony: A Contested PointThe more controversial issue came with the ALJ’s treatment of Morrow’s symptom testimony. Morrow claimed disabling pain, the need to rest flat for hours per day, and limited mobility. The ALJ found his statements inconsistent with the medical record and assigned an RFC allowing for 6 hours of sitting and 3 hours standing/walking daily.

The majority said the ALJ met the “clear and convincing reasons” standard under Smartt v. Kijakazi. But Judge Koh dissented in part, arguing the ALJ merely offered generic boilerplate and a summary of the record, without a sufficient explanation of how Morrow’s allegations were contradicted by the evidence.

Her dissent leans heavily on Lambert v. Saul and Ferguson v. O’Malley, pushing for a more rigorous articulation standard: ALJs must not only cite conflicting evidence but connect the dots, showing why specific records undermine specific allegations.

⚖️ Why It Matters: This case underscores the evolving tension in Ninth Circuit jurisprudence over what constitutes a “clear and convincing” rationale when rejecting symptom testimony. The majority gave the ALJ the benefit of the doubt. The dissent reminds us that narrative summaries aren’t enough—we need pinpointed, persuasive reasoning.

For attorneys litigating in federal court: Watch this space. The gap between deference and demands for rigor in ALJ reasoning is still very much in flux.

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.