Cody v. Bisignano

── Cody v. Bisignano ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 26, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 26 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRIAN J. CODY, No. 25-3837 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 3:24-cv-05294-SKV v. MEMORANDUM* FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Sarah Kate Vaughan, Magistrate Judge, Presiding Submitted May 21, 2026** Seattle, Washington Before: HAWKINS, CLIFTON, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges. Brian Cody appeals the district court’s decision affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of his application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We * 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). review de novo the district court’s decision, Miskey v. Kijakazi, 33 F.4th 565, 570 (9th Cir. 2022), and affirm as we determine that the administrative law judge’s (“ALJ”) decision is supported by substantial evidence and free of legal error, Shaibi v. Berryhill, 883 F.3d 1102, 1108 (9th Cir. 2017). 1. Cody first contends that the ALJ erred in assessing the medical evidence and numerous medical opinions. Under the regulations applicable to Cody’s application, the ALJ was required to give clear and convincing reasons for discounting the uncontradicted opinion of a treating or examining physician; if the opinion was contradicted, the ALJ could reject the opinion for “specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record for so doing.” Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1996) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The ALJ gave adequate reasons supported by substantial evidence for the weight assigned to each challenged opinion. The ALJ permissibly discounted the opinions of Dr. Sylwester, Dr. Deem, and nurse practitioner Nancy Armstrong regarding Cody’s exertional limitations as inconsistent with their largely unremarkable clinical findings and the other medical evidence demonstrating that Cody pursued minimal treatment for his back, at times reported no back pain, and regularly presented with normal gait and motor function. See Ford v. Saul, 950 F.3d 1141, 1156 (9th Cir. 2020). 2 25-3837  Cody also challenges the ALJ’s decision to assign little weight to the functional limitations assessed by Dr. Davenport. He fails, however, to address the ALJ’s primary reason for doing so: that Dr. Davenport attributed the limitations in his opinion to left Achilles tendonitis—a condition which Cody did not consistently report and which did not persist for the requisite 12-month period. Therefore, we need not consider Cody’s remaining contentions regarding Dr. Davenport’s opinion. See Nadon v. Bisignano, 145 F.4th 1133, 1138 (9th Cir. 2025) (claimant “forfeited the argument that the ALJ did not provide sufficient reasons for discounting the opinions of the healthcare professionals” by failing to acknowledge the ALJ’s reliance on additional reasons for discounting opinions). Cody’s challenges to the medical op