Case Explained: ARMSTRONG V. BISIGNANO

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2026-06-23 Docket: 2:24-cv-00691-GJL The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment upholding the Social Security Commissioner’s denial of disability benefits to Amanda Armstrong. The court applied a de novo standard of review to the district court’s decision and reviewed the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) findings for substantial evidence or legal error. The court held that the ALJ did not err in discounting Armstrong’s testimony regarding the severity of her headaches because the ALJ provided specific, clear, and convincing reasons for doing so. These reasons included discrepancies between Armstrong’s claims of debilitating symptoms and her reported ability to perform daily activities such as crocheting, painting, cooking, and cleaning, as well as contradictions between her subjective testimony and contemporaneous medical records showing variable headache frequency, normal physical examinations, and reports that her medications were effective. The court further rejected Armstrong’s arguments regarding rebound headaches, the variable intensity of her pain, medication side effects, and the phrase “no acute distress,” finding that the ALJ properly considered her failure to follow treatment recommendations and the medical evidence indicating her symptoms were not as debilitating as alleged. Consequently, the denial of benefits stands, and no further administrative or judicial action is required regarding this claim. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.