Barnes v. Bisignano

── Barnes v. Bisignano ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 14, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED MAY 14 2026 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CHRISTOPHER BARNES, No. 24-7390 D.C. No. 2:23-cv-00142-LRS Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Lonny R. Suko, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 24, 2026** Seattle, Washington Before: W. FLETCHER and KOH, Circuit Judges, and RAYES, District Judge.*** Christopher Barnes appeals from the district court’s judgment affirming an Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) denial of his application for disability insurance * 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). *** The Honorable Douglas L. Rayes, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation. benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm. “We may set aside a denial of benefits only if it is not supported by substantial evidence or is based on legal error.” Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 882 (9th Cir. 2006). 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, 108 (2019) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 1. Barnes challenges the ALJ’s full discounting of the opinion of Arthur Flores, PA-C, and the ALJ’s partial discounting of four other opinions. For claims filed after March 27, 2017, the ALJ must articulate the persuasiveness of all medical opinions in the record based on factors set forth in the regulations, giving most weight to supportability and consistency. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c(a)–(b), 416.920c(a)–(b). The ALJ’s finding that the opinion of Arthur Flores, PA-C, was unpersuasive was supported by substantial evidence. Flores’s opinion was presented on a three-page form consisting of checkboxes accompanied by brief handwritten comments. While we agree with Barnes that the ALJ went a step too far in characterizing the opinion as a “checkbox form” with “no treatment notes” (there were, in fact, brief treatment notes), the ALJ was correct in concluding that 2 24-7390 Flores’s opinion offered “no more than . . . generalized explanation[s].” The ALJ was “partially persuaded” by the opinion of Dr. Erin Morrison. The ALJ reasonably concluded that Dr. Morrison’s more limiting language was “not consistent” with the longitudinal record and with “Dr. Morrison’s own opinions on [Barnes’s] mostly moderate limitations.” Cf. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(c)(2). The ALJ was “partially persuaded” by the opinion of Dr. Joyce Everhart. Even accepting all of Dr. Everhart’s opinion as true, the ALJ’s nondisability determination is still supported by substantial evidence. Dr. Everhart noted that Barnes’s “persistence and pace are good,” that he “remains on task,” “does not appear easily distracted,” and could “listen, understand, remem