Case Explained: ORTIZ V. BISIGNANO

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-06-24

Docket: 3:23-cv-05757-

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits and remanded with instructions to calculate and award benefits. The court held that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) committed legal error by failing to provide specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence for rejecting dispositive medical opinions and subjective testimony. The court applied the pre-2017 rules governing medical opinion evidence, which require treating sources to be given greater weight than examining or non-examining sources. Regarding physical limitations, the ALJ erred in discounting Dr. Shute’s opinion that Ortiz was limited to light work due to chronic pain. The court ruled that routine observations of normal gait, strength, and range of motion do not contradict a pain-based limitation when those tests do not account for the claimant’s pain, as pain is a non-exertional limitation distinct from physical exertion capacity. Regarding psychological evaluations, the ALJ erred in rejecting the opinions of examining sources Drs. Wingate and Weiss while granting substantial weight to Dr. Clifford, a non-examining source whose opinion relied on the very evidence the ALJ had rejected as outdated. The court found that isolated instances of normal mental status or episodic improvements do not rebut diagnoses of bipolar disorder and other conditions that inherently involve fluctuating symptoms. Additionally, the ALJ failed to provide clear and convincing reasons for discrediting Ortiz’s subjective testimony regarding his psychogenic seizures, depression, low energy, and anxiety, as the record evidence did not support the conclusion that these symptoms were inconsistent with his medical history or medication compliance. Because the record is fully developed and further administrative proceedings would serve no useful purpose, the practical consequence of this ruling is that benefits must be awarded immediately rather than remanding for a new hearing. The court determined that crediting any of the improperly rejected medical opinions would legally require a finding of disability given Ortiz’s age, education, and work history, particularly as Dr. Shute’s light work limitation would trigger an automatic disability finding under the Medical Vocational Guidelines.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.