Swanson v. Bisignano: Ninth Circuit Reverses Again

Swanson applied for disability insurance benefits alleging chronic pain and mobility problems. The case had already been remanded once. On the second remand the ALJ issued a decision that the Ninth Circuit found to be substantially the same as the prior decision.

• Result: Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded again because the ALJ repeated prior errors—principally in evaluating medical opinions and building the RFC. Judge Callahan partially dissented only on the rejection of Dr. Ford’s mental-adaptability opinion.

  
  

Why this matters (TL;DR)

• On remand, ALJs must actually address earlier errors—not just republish the same reasoning.

• Medical records and treatment notes must be read in full and in context (remember Holohan v. Massanari).

• Activities of daily living are not, by themselves, proof that a claimant can sustain full-time work (see Vertigan v. Halter).

• 
  

Key legal issues & what the Court said

Medical opinion evaluation (20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c)

• The ALJ discounted opinions from multiple examining/treating providers (Drs. Sidhu, Packer, Saue, Staley, and Ford) but did not give adequate, specific reasons under the post‑2017 opinion rules.

• The ALJ said the opinions relied on “old” records — the court rejected that shorthand and required the ALJ to explain why age of the record undermines supportability/consistency.

• The ALJ pointed to Swanson’s daily activities as inconsistent with the doctors’ opinions but failed to develop the record about frequency, duration, or intensity of those activities.

• The Ninth Circuit emphasized the need to read treatment notes in context: e.g., records showing increased pain after activity and an abnormal gait had been ignored or minimized.

  
  

Practice point: When challenging an ALJ’s rejection of an opinion, walk the court through the regulation’s two primary factors—supportability and consistency—and show exactly (with record cites) how the provider’s findings tie to contemporaneous clinical data.

RFC and Step Five errors

• Because the ALJ improperly discounted relevant medical opinions, the RFC lacked substantial evidentiary support.

• An unsupported RFC ripples into step five—the vocational testimony/hypotheticals are only as good as the RFC they rely on.

  
  

Practice point: Map each RFC limitation to specific medical evidence or physician opinion. If the ALJ rejects an opinion, explain why the remaining record still supports your proposed function-by-function RFC—or show why a remand is required.

Claimant testimony (credibility)

• The Ninth Circuit upheld the ALJ’s credibility finding: Swanson failed to show the evidence was not susceptible to multiple rational interpretations.

• Important reminder: even where the ALJ errs elsewhere, a credibility determination can stand if the ALJ gave clear and convincing reasons supported by the record.

  
  

Lay‑witness evidence

• The court found no harmful error because Swanson did not explain how accepting lay evidence would have changed the outcome.

  
  

Practice point: If relying on lay statements, include a short explanation in briefing: how would this evidence change the RFC or the step‑five conclusion? If it wouldn’t, say so and explain why.

Outcome

• Reversed and remanded for further proceedings because key factual issues were unresolved and material conflicts remained (citing Treichler v. Comm’r of SSA principles).

• The decision is a clear signal: on remand the agency must meaningfully address the prior court’s criticisms.

  
  

Practical takeaways for practitioners

• On remand, insist on a true de novo review. ALJs can’t simply repackage the same findings; the prior errors must be expressly addressed.

• Don’t let ADLs stand alone. If the ALJ cites activities, demand evidentiary development: frequency, duration, assistance, pain after activity, and whether the activity is sporadic vs. sustained.

• Make medical opinions anchor the RFC. Ensure treating/examining providers connect clinical findings to functional limits (time off‑task, walking distance, lifting, concentration, pacing).

• File targeted declarations from providers that link objective findings to job‑related functions when possible.

• If the ALJ discounts an opinion, map the remaining evidence. Show whether the RFC remains supported or whether remand is required.

• Preserve arguments. The Ninth Circuit will treat undeveloped issues as forfeited on remand.

  
  

Q&A (for busy readers)

Q: Can an ALJ rely on the same reasoning after a remand?

A: No—remand requires the ALJ to address the court’s criticisms and explain how the new decision differs. Merely reissuing the same reasoning invites reversal.

Q: Are a claimant’s daily activities enough to disprove disability?

A: Not by themselves. The ALJ must show how the activities translate to sustained full‑time work; courts caution that basic ADLs don’t equal work tolerance (Vertigan).

Q: What should I include in briefing when an ALJ discounts a treating/examining opinion?

A: Walk the court through 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c factors (supportability & consistency). Quote the treatment notes that support the opinion and show where the ALJ misread or omitted context.

Q: If the ALJ errs on medical opinions but gets credibility right, is a remand still likely?

A: Yes—errors that infect the RFC or step five often require remand even if credibility findings survive, because the vocational outcome may change.

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.