Ninth Circuit Upholds ALJ in Blanchard v. Bisignano

The Ninth Circuit recently affirmed the denial of disability benefits in Blanchard v. Bisignano, providing a helpful refresher on how courts evaluate subjective symptom testimony, conflicting medical opinions, and vocational expert (VE) evidence under the substantial evidence standard.

Overview of the Case

Blanchard alleged disabling physical and cognitive limitations following a car accident. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) was not fully persuaded—and the Ninth Circuit agreed.

Credibility and Subjective Symptom Testimony

Why did the Court uphold the ALJ’s findings?Because the ALJ provided specific, clear, and convincing reasons to discount Blanchard’s statements:

• His claims conflicted with the objective medical record

• He worked for nearly a year in a demanding position after the accident

• His daily activities—such as driving his kids, attending events, and traveling—suggested greater functionality

  
  

The Ninth Circuit emphasized that ALJs are not required to accept every allegation of pain if it conflicts with the objective evidence.

Medical Opinions and the “Rational Interpretation” Rule

Blanchard’s case featured multiple medical opinions:

• Some providers believed he could handle full-time work

• Others concluded he was incapable of sustained employment

  
  

The ALJ found a middle ground, limiting him to sedentary work with restricted social interaction.

Key Holding

When the evidence is “susceptible to more than one rational interpretation,” the ALJ’s conclusion must stand.

In practice, the weight of each medical opinion depends on:

• Thoroughness of examination

• Time relevance to the alleged disability period

• Internal consistency within the opinion

  
  

Vocational Evidence: What Counts as “Significant”?

Blanchard also challenged the VE’s testimony, pointing to his own consultant’s analysis of local job postings (e.g., Indeed, ZipRecruiter).

The Ninth Circuit rejected this argument. It held that:

• The ALJ properly relied on the VE’s BLS-based testimony, and

• The claimant’s alternative data was not “significant probative evidence” because it used a different methodology

  
  

Takeaway

Citing online job listings will not overcome standard vocational evidence derived from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The Broader Lesson: Substantial Evidence Still Rules

This decision reinforces the deferential nature of the substantial evidence standard in Social Security appeals.

If the ALJ ties their findings to the record—even imperfectly—the Ninth Circuit will uphold.

Practitioner Insight

To achieve a different outcome, practitioners must build a record that leaves the ALJ with only one rational interpretation to adopt.

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.