Nadon v. Bisignano: Lessons from a 9th Circuit Disability Case

Sometimes you read a case and want to bang your head against the wall. Nadon v. Bisignano from the Ninth Circuit is one of those. It’s a textbook example of how a potentially winnable Social Security disability case can collapse when advocacy misses critical points.

Nadon lived with fibromyalgia, spinal issues, depression, anxiety, and PTSD. She applied for SSDI in 2015. The first administrative law judge (ALJ) denied her claim, concluding she could return to her prior work as a cashier. On appeal, she scored a big win—the Ninth Circuit agreed the ALJ had ignored her PTSD entirely and sent the case back. That should have been good news.

Instead, the remand became a nightmare. A new ALJ reviewed the case and focused on Nadon’s work as a personal care attendant from July 2021 to 2022.

Even though that work did not meet the definition of substantial gainful activity (SGA), the ALJ concluded it still showed she could work. The Ninth Circuit agreed, pointing to regulations that allow consideration of any work activity as evidence of capacity, even if it’s not technically SGA.

Here’s where the case truly went off the rails. Nadon’s attorney attacked the ALJ’s finding about her work activity but ignored five other reasons the ALJ gave for denial: symptom improvement with treatment, largely normal examination results, regular daily activities, past similar work, and inconsistent testimony. Each medical opinion was also independently undermined—one provider wasn’t a qualified medical source, another admitted they weren’t qualified to do disability evaluations, one had minimal treatment records, and another simply repeated Nadon’s own statements without analysis.

Because these other grounds for denial weren’t addressed in the appellate brief, the Ninth Circuit deemed them waived. That single oversight sealed the case’s fate. This was more than a bad break—it was a preventable forfeiture.

The lesson is clear. Disability attorneys must challenge every reason an ALJ gives for a denial, no matter how weak it seems. Focusing on a “smoking gun” like a questionable SGA finding can be tempting, but ignoring secondary issues leaves dangerous openings. ALJs can—and will—use any work activity against claimants. Medical sources must be qualified and provide detailed, well-supported opinions. And every argument needs to be fully briefed to preserve it for appeal.

Cases like Nadon v. Bisignano are frustrating, but they’re also valuable reminders. Comprehensive, point-by-point advocacy is the only way to keep a strong claim from slipping away on remand.

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.