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 / Fletcher-Silvas v. Bisignano
9th Cir.

Fletcher-Silvas v. Bisignano

June 12, 2026 ·3:23-cv-06177-TLF ·Unpublished · By Raj Patel

The Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court order remanding a Social Security disability claim for further proceedings. The court held that factual conflicts in the record precluded an immediate award of benefits under the credit-as-true rule.

Listen to this decision 0:00 / 1:31
Download

Key takeaways

  • Holding: The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's remand order, instructing that the case be remanded on an open record to resolve factual conflicts before a disability determination can be made.
  • Standard: abuse of discretion
  • Vote: Unpublished memorandum decision by a unanimous panel.
  • Practical effect: The decision requires the administrative law judge to reopen the record and resolve factual conflicts before making a final disability determination, rather than awarding benefits immediately.

Background

Lynne M. Fletcher-Silvas appealed a district court order that remanded her application for Social Security disability insurance benefits for further proceedings before an administrative law judge. She argued the district court should have remanded only for a determination of benefits rather than further proceedings.

The court’s reasoning

The court applied the credit-as-true jurisprudence, which allows remand with instructions to award benefits only if the ALJ failed to provide legally sufficient reasons for rejecting evidence, there are no outstanding issues, and the record is fully developed. The court agreed with the district court that significant factual conflicts existed in the record, such as inconsistencies between the claimant’s testimony about her ability to walk and medical records showing normal gait, and between her reported anxiety and lack of such reports to doctors. Consequently, the court found further administrative proceedings were necessary. The court also affirmed the district court’s conclusion regarding the date last insured, noting the claimant did not file within twelve months of her prior disability period ending.

What it means going forward

The decision requires the administrative law judge to reopen the record and resolve factual conflicts before making a final disability determination, rather than awarding benefits immediately.

Civil Social Security

On this page

Background The court’s reasoning What it means going forward

Share

Related from this court

Jul 17, 2026 DHARAM SINGH V. TODD BLANCHE Jul 17, 2026 Rosenow v. Meta Platforms, Inc., et al. Jul 16, 2026 Knife Rights, Inc. v. Bonta Jul 16, 2026 USA v. Celaya
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.