Miller v. Bisignano

── Miller v. Bisignano ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: April 17, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 17 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KATHY S. MILLER, No. 25-1150 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 3:24-cv-05260-GJL v. MEMORANDUM* FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Grady J. Leupold, Magistrate Judge, Presiding Submitted April 16, 2026** Portland, Oregon Before: OWENS, VANDYKE, and SUNG, Circuit Judges. Kathy Sue Miller appeals from the district court’s order affirming an Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) denial of her application for * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). disability-insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401–433. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. We review a denial of Social Security benefits de novo. Revels v. Berryhill, 874 F.3d 648, 653–54 (9th Cir. 2017). We set aside a denial of benefits only when the decision is “based on legal error or not supported by substantial evidence in the record.” Id. at 654. “‘Substantial evidence’ means more than a mere scintilla, but less than a preponderance.” Valentine v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 690 (9th Cir. 2009). “[T]he ALJ is responsible for determining credibility, resolving conflicts in medical testimony, and for resolving ambiguities.” Ford v. Saul, 950 F.3d 1141, 1149 (9th Cir. 2020) (quotation marks omitted). And “[i]f the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, it is the ALJ’s conclusion that must be upheld.” Id. at 1154 (quotation marks omitted). 1. The ALJ did not err in rejecting the opinion of Dr. Penny Faires. Miller filed her claim in 2015, so the rules in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 govern whether the ALJ properly evaluated the medical-opinion evidence. Those rules require the ALJ to determine the appropriate weight to give an opinion based on a number of factors, including the length and nature of the treatment relationship, the supportability of the opinion, the consistency of the opinion with other evidence in the record, and the specialization of the physician. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)–(6). Here, Dr. Faires’s conclusory statement failed to describe or explain any limitations that Miller had at 2 25-1150 the relevant time. See Ford, 950 F.3d at 1154 (“The ALJ need not accept the opinion of any physician, including a treating physician, if that opinion is brief, conclusory, and inadequately supported by clinical findings.”); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) (“The better an explanation a source provides for a medical opinion, the more weight we will give that medical opinion.”). Moreover, Dr. Faires’s conclusory statement that Miller had “serious PTSD and mental health issues that prevent[ed] her from … being able to work” was given and related to the time period two years after her insured status expired. See Tidwell v. Apfel, 161 F.3d 599, 602 (9th Cir. 1998); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1). Nor did the ALJ err by discounting Ms. Kara Wade’s