Skip to content
Do It For The Caselaw
  • Decisions
  • Broadcast
  • Topics
  • About
  • Shop
  • Subscribe
Do It For The Caselaw
  • Decisions
  • Broadcast
  • Topics
  • About
  • Shop
  • Subscribe
Home / Decisions / United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit / Ortiz v. Bisignano
9th Cir.

Ortiz v. Bisignano

June 24, 2026 ·24-5407 ·unanimous ·Paez · By Raj Patel

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's affirmation of a Social Security Commissioner's denial of Supplemental Security Income benefits, holding that the Administrative Law Judge erred in discounting treating source medical opinions and subjective testimony regarding seizures and mental health symptoms.

Listen to this decision 0:00 / 0:51
Download

Key takeaways

  • Holding: The district court's judgment affirming the denial of benefits is reversed, and the case is remanded with instructions to award benefits.
  • Standard: Substantial evidence
  • Vote: The panel unanimously concluded the case was suitable for decision without oral argument and reversed the lower court's judgment.
  • Practical effect: The decision requires the Administrative Law Judge to calculate and award benefits to the claimant, reinforcing the requirement for specific reasons when rejecting treating source opinions and subjective testimony in Social Security cases.

Background

Max Ortiz applied for Supplemental Security Income benefits in two thousand and fifteen, alleging disability due to chronic pain, seizure disorders, and mental health conditions including bipolar disorder and anxiety. The Administrative Law Judge denied the application in two thousand and twenty-three after a prior remand, finding Ortiz capable of medium work and discounting various medical opinions and subjective testimony regarding his limitations.

The court’s reasoning

The panel held that the Administrative Law Judge failed to provide specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence for discounting the treating source Dr. Shute’s analysis of Ortiz’s pain, particularly where routine observations did not address the specific pain complaints. The panel further found error in rejecting multiple psychological opinions that indicated marked or severe limitations, and in discrediting Ortiz’s testimony regarding seizures, depression, low energy, and anxiety. Because the record was fully developed, the panel determined that benefits should be awarded.

What it means going forward

The decision requires the Administrative Law Judge to calculate and award benefits to the claimant, reinforcing the requirement for specific reasons when rejecting treating source opinions and subjective testimony in Social Security cases.

Civil Social Security

On this page

Background The court’s reasoning What it means going forward

Share

Related from this court

Jun 24, 2026 ZHANG V. BLANCHE Jun 24, 2026 USA v. Owens Jun 24, 2026 Reyes Lopez, Et Al. v. Blanche Jun 24, 2026 GORDON V. OLGUIN, ET AL.
Do It For The Caselaw

Just Do It For the Caselaw!

Site

  • Mission
  • The Anchors
  • Editorial Process
  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Contact

Read & Listen

  • Decisions
  • Broadcast
  • Topics
  • The Weekly Brief

Follow

© 2026 Do It For The Caselaw. Not legal advice.