Lee v. Bisignano

── Lee v. Bisignano ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: April 21, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 21 2026 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS RASY PEN LEE, No. 25-243 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:24-cv-05205-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 March 12, 2026** Portland, Oregon Before: COLLINS and LEE, Circuit Judges, and FITZWATER, District Judge.*** Rasy Lee appeals the district court’s judgment upholding the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. Lee argues that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred in his assessment of certain doctors’ medical opinions, Lee’s * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C). *** The Honorable Sidney A. Fitzwater, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation. testimony, Lee’s residual functioning capacity, and the available jobs Lee could perform. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the ALJ’s underlying decision for legal error or lack of substantial evidence. Lambert v. Saul, 980 F.3d 1266, 1270 (9th Cir. 2020). Substantial evidence “means—and means only—‘such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’” Biestek v. Berryhill, 587 U.S. 97, 103 (2019) (citation omitted). We affirm. 1. Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s weighing of the medical opinions of Dr. Enkema and Dr. Rousseau. An ALJ must assess medical opinions based on their supportability and consistency with the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(b)(2); see Woods v. Kijakazi, 32 F.4th 785, 791–92 (9th Cir. 2022). The ALJ reasonably concluded that Dr. Enkema’s medical opinion was unpersuasive. The ALJ explained that Dr. Enkema’s opinion was unsupported by medical evidence. In particular, the ALJ reasonably determined that Dr. Enkema’s conclusions about Lee’s physical limitations were belied by his own examination results, which showed full strength in all extremities and a normal range of motion in most major joints. The ALJ also permissibly found that Dr. Enkema’s opinion was inconsistent with the record in other respects: Lee pursued conservative treatment and failed to follow through on certain referrals; examinations by other medical providers found a normal range of motion, strength, and gait; and Lee 2 reported subsequent work as a nail aesthetician. Finally, the ALJ properly considered that Dr. Enkema did not have an opportunity to review the record as a whole. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(c)(5) (stating that the ALJ may consider a medical source’s “familiarity with the other evidence in the claim”). The ALJ’s findings are supported by substantial evidence.1 The ALJ permissibly concluded that Dr. Rousseau’s medical opinion was persuasive. The ALJ reasoned that Dr. Rousseau’s opinion was supported by objective medical evidence, including Lee’s full motor strength and normal gait; that his opinion was consistent with records showing conservative treatment for Lee’s conditions and