Navarro v. Bisignano

── Navarro v. Bisignano ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: April 22, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 22 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PAULETTE NAVARRO, No. 24-7705 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 3:23-cv-05065-SK v. MEMORANDUM* FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Sallie Kim, Magistrate Judge, Presiding Submitted April 20, 2026** San Francisco, California Before: S.R. THOMAS, CHRISTEN, and FORREST, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Paulette Navarro seeks disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. An administrative law judge (ALJ) denied her claim, concluding that she had sufficient residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform * 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). relevant past work. The district court affirmed, and Navarro timely appealed. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). We have jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm. “We review de novo a district court’s order that upholds the denial of social security benefits.” Ferguson v. O’Malley, 95 F.4th 1194, 1199 (9th Cir. 2024). We will only set aside the ALJ’s decision if it is unsupported by substantial evidence or premised on a legal mistake. Stiffler v. O’Malley, 102 F.4th 1102, 1106 (9th Cir. 2024). “Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla.” Id. (citation omitted). If the evidence can go either way, we will not “substitute our judgment for that of the ALJ.” Ferguson, 95 F.4th at 1199. Because Navarro filed her application for benefits on March 16, 2017, the standards for assessing medical evidence that were in effect prior to March 27, 2017, apply here. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. 1. Medical Evidence. Navarro first argues that the ALJ improperly discredited the testimony of psychologists Paul Martin, who examined Navarro, and Donald Fallin, who treated her. Though we give special weight to the opinions of examining and treating care providers, when they are contradicted the ALJ may reject them “for specific and legitimate reasons that are supported by substantial evidence in the record.” Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830–31 (9th Cir. 1995). The ALJ properly offered “specific and legitimate reasons” for affording less weight to Dr. Martin’s opinion relative to Dr. Alan Berkowitz’s contrary one by pointing to 2 24-7705 the discrepancy between Dr. Martin’s conclusions as to Navarro’s mental condition and the normal findings that he made upon examining Navarro. Turning to Dr. Fallin, we begin by noting that, rather than discrediting Dr. Fallin’s opinion entirely, the ALJ afforded it “some weight.” The ALJ did not give more weight to Dr. Fallin because Dr. Fallin attributed Navarro’s declining mental health mainly to her chronic pain, rather than to any underlying mental condition. This was not error, as pain from a physical condition is a symptom of the physical condition rather than a separate impairment. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b). We conclude that the ALJ provided specific and legitimate reasons suppo