Martin v. Bisignano

── Martin v. Bisignano ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: April 20, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 20 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MELISSA KAILYN MARTIN, No. 25-344 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 2:24-cv-00528-JR v. MEMORANDUM* FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of Social Security, Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Jolie A. Russo, Magistrate Judge, Presiding Submitted April 17, 2026** Portland, Oregon Before: OWENS, VANDYKE, and SUNG, Circuit Judges. Melissa Martin appeals from the district court’s order affirming an Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) denial of her application for disability-insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and * 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). XVI of the Social Security Act, respectively. 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3). 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) (citation omitted). The 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 when she discounted Martin’s testimony. “When objective medical evidence is inconsistent with a claimant’s subjective testimony, an ALJ can reject the claimant’s testimony about the severity of her symptoms only by offering specific, clear, and convincing reasons for doing so.” Smartt v. Kijakazi, 53 F.4th 489, 494 (9th Cir. 2022) (quotation marks omitted). “The standard [is] whether the ALJ’s rationale is clear enough that it has the power to convince.” Id. at 499. Although the ALJ in one place mistook Martin’s statements about the frequency of her naps for allegations about the frequency of her seizures and 2 25-344 migraines, Martin did elsewhere allege that she gets migraines and seizures on a daily basis. As the ALJ explained, “the treatment history is inconsistent with these allegations.” The ALJ’s misstatement about where in the record Martin alleged this is, at most, harmless error. See Carmickle v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1162 (9th Cir. 2008). In addition to the inconsistencies with the medical record, the ALJ also validly relied on Martin’s refusal to take prescribed anti-seizure medication. See Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2008); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv). The ALJ detailed at length Martin’s history of being prescribed seizu