Four Reminders From the Ninth Circuit on Substantial Evidence Review
On August 11, 2026, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of benefits in Yandrich v. Bisignano; it carries no precedential weight. But still, it is worth reading. The claimant challenged the ALJ's handling of the medical opinion evidence, his own symptom testimony, lay witness testimony from a family member, and the resulting RFC and step-five findings. He lost on all four. Yandrich is a useful reminder of how substantial evidence review actually plays out once a matter reaches the Ninth Circuit.
Medical opinions. The ALJ discounted three favorable opinions, from Dr. Jamito, Dr. Wingate, and Mr. Bolden, as inconsistent with the providers' own "unremarkable" treatment notes, while crediting the better-supported opinions of Drs. Sacks, Ahn, and Melamed. The panel affirmed under Kitchen v. Kijakazi, 82 F.4th 732 (9th Cir. 2023), and Woods v. Kijakazi, 32 F.4th 785 (9th Cir. 2022). The lesson for us: a strong opinion letter isn't enough on its own if the contemporaneous chart doesn't reflect the same picture of limitation. When we're developing the record, it's worth going back to a treating source before the hearing, not just after an unfavorable decision, if their notes and their opinion seem to be telling different stories. Closing that gap early matters more than the opinion letter itself.
Symptom testimony. The court found the ALJ gave "specific, clear, and convincing reasons" for discounting the claimant's testimony about disabling fatigue and social anxiety, tying the finding to concrete conflicts with clinical findings and reported daily activities. The panel relied on Smartt v. Kijakazi, 53 F.4th 489 (9th Cir. 2022). ALJs who anchor credibility findings in specifics, a particular activity, a particular exam finding, rather than generic boilerplate about daily living, are consistently getting affirmed post-Smartt. That means our job at the hearing level is to get ahead of the specific activities and findings an ALJ is likely to flag, and address the apparent inconsistency directly through testimony or a brief, rather than leaving that fight for the appeal, where the standard is much harder to overcome.
Lay witness testimony. Because the lay witness testimony from Amanda DeLouise "largely repeated" the claimant's own claims, the panel held the same reasons discounting his testimony were "germane" enough to discount hers too, citing Valentine v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 574 F.3d 685 (9th Cir. 2009). This is a good moment to revisit how we prepare lay witnesses. A statement carries the most independent weight when it adds something the claimant's own testimony can't, specific observed changes over time, particular incidents, day-to-day details a third party would notice that a claimant might not think to mention. A statement that mirrors the claimant's narrative offers little independent evidentiary value, and as this case shows, it's just as vulnerable to the same credibility findings.
RFC and step five. Because the medical opinion and testimony challenges failed, the panel treated the RFC and step-five arguments as derivative, the ALJ was only obligated to include limitations he found supported by the record, and his reliance on Medical-Vocational Rule 201.27 to direct a finding of "not disabled" was upheld under Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2005). This is worth flagging for anyone building an appellate brief: RFC and grid-rule arguments rarely succeed as freestanding claims of error. If they're not paired with a successful challenge to the medical evidence or testimony underneath them, they typically don't have anywhere to stand on their own.
None of this breaks new legal ground, and Yandrich won't be cited as authority. But it confirms a pattern worth internalizing: these cases are usually won or lost long before the appeal, in how thoroughly the record is developed, how squarely testimony is tied to the medical evidence, and whether lay statements add anything a reviewing court can point to as independent. By the time substantial evidence review kicks in, there's very little room left to argue that the ALJ simply reached the wrong result on a well-supported record. The work that protects a claimant on appeal happens well before the notice of appeal is ever filed.
Got any questions? Schedule a discovery call 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.
