How “Substantial Evidence” Keeps Winning

In Shillington v. Bisignano, No. 24-6894 (9th Cir. 2026), the Ninth Circuit delivered a clear reminder to Social Security disability practitioners: overturning an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decision remains an uphill battle — even when errors exist.

For claimants and attorneys handling SSDI appeals in the Ninth Circuit, this case reinforces long-standing principles about the deferential “substantial evidence” standard of review. Here’s a detailed breakdown of what happened and why it matters.

The Case in Brief

The claimant appealed the denial of Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits, arguing that the ALJ erred in evaluating:

• Medical opinion evidence from multiple treating and examining providers

• State agency findings

• The claimant’s subjective symptom testimony

• Third-party statements (lay witness testimony)

  
  

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision upholding the ALJ’s denial across all issues.

Medical Opinions: Supportability and Consistency Remain Key

The court upheld the ALJ’s decision to reject several medical opinions because they lacked supportability (consistency with the provider’s own treatment notes) and consistency with the broader medical record.

For example, one provider opined that the claimant could not sustain a full 8-hour workday. However, the provider’s own notes documented largely normal physical findings and only minimal objective abnormalities. The ALJ reasonably gave the opinion less weight, and the Ninth Circuit agreed.

Similarly, opinions describing severe mental limitations were properly discounted. Treatment records showed improvement in key areas, including:

• Better memory

• Improved focus and concentration

• Cooperative behavior during exams

  
  

The court noted that even limited evidence of improvement over time was sufficient to undermine opinions suggesting marked or extreme limitations.

Takeaway for Practitioners: Under current SSA regulations, ALJs must explain how they considered supportability and consistency. Opinions that conflict with the provider’s own records or the overall evidence are vulnerable to rejection.

Subjective Symptom Testimony: Inconsistency with the Record Is Enough

The ALJ discounted the claimant’s testimony about the intensity and limiting effects of symptoms based on:

• Benign imaging results

• Normal gait and physical exam findings

• Reported daily activities

• Evidence of longitudinal improvement with treatment

  
  

The Ninth Circuit affirmed, reiterating that inconsistency between a claimant’s statements and the objective medical evidence provides a sufficient basis to reject symptom testimony — without needing to find malingering.

Hard Reality Check: Without strong objective support in the record, even consistent and detailed testimony often fails to overcome the ALJ’s findings.

Third-Party Statements and the Harmless Error Doctrine

Here, the ALJ made a clear error by failing to properly evaluate third-party (lay witness) statements. However, the Ninth Circuit found the error harmless.

Why? The third-party reports largely duplicated the claimant’s own subjective reports, which the ALJ had already properly discounted for valid reasons. The court emphasized that claimants must show not only error, but also prejudice that affects the outcome.

This is a classic application of the harmless error doctrine in Social Security appeals — one of the most claimant-unfriendly aspects of Ninth Circuit review.

RFC and Step Five Arguments Fail When Repackaged

The claimant’s challenges to the residual functional capacity (RFC) assessment and the Step Five vocational findings were rejected as simply repackaging earlier arguments about evidence evaluation. Once the court upheld the ALJ’s handling of the medical opinions and testimony, the downstream issues fell away.

Three Key Realities Reinforced by Shillington v. Bisignano

This decision highlights three enduring truths in Ninth Circuit Social Security appeals:

1. “Substantial evidence” is a highly deferential standard. The ALJ’s decision doesn’t need to be perfect — it only needs to be supported by “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”

2. Inconsistencies in the medical record are often decisive. Conflicts between opinions and treatment notes, or between allegations and objective findings, give ALJs wide latitude.

3. The harmless error doctrine frequently saves flawed decisions. Showing an error is rarely enough; you must demonstrate that the error mattered to the final result.

   
   

Practical Lessons for Social Security Disability Practitioners

Shillington v. Bisignano serves as another data point showing how difficult it is to win a reversal on appeal in the Ninth Circuit. Success usually requires more than pointing out imperfections in the ALJ’s reasoning — it demands showing that the decision lacks substantial evidence or that harmful legal errors occurred.

For Claimants: Strong, well-supported medical opinions that align with treatment records and objective evidence remain your best tool. Daily activities, improvement notes, and normal exams can undermine even compelling testimony.

For Attorneys: Carefully document prejudice when alleging error. Focus appeals on issues where the ALJ’s reasoning cannot reasonably be supported by the record.

Need Help with a Denied SSDI or SSI Claim?

If you or a client received an unfavorable ALJ decision and are considering an appeal to federal court, understanding cases like Shillington v. Bisignano is critical.

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.