Case Explained: OLSON V. BISIGNANO

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2026-06-15 Docket: 3:24-cv-05351-BAT The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order upholding the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of Crystal L. Olson’s application for supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. The court applied a de novo standard of review to the district court’s decision, determining whether the administrative law judge’s (ALJ) ruling was supported by substantial evidence and free of legal error. The court held that the ALJ did not err in weighing medical opinions, as the ALJ articulated specific and legitimate reasons for discounting certain opinions based on their inconsistency with Olson’s internal statements, self-reported activities, minimal treatment history, and objective medical evidence. Furthermore, the court found the ALJ provided clear and convincing reasons to discount Olson’s symptom testimony and the lay witness testimony of her friend and therapist, citing inconsistencies with the medical record, conservative treatment patterns, and daily activities. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported these assessments and that Olson’s remaining claims were derivative of these arguments. The practical consequence is that the denial of benefits remains in effect, and the ALJ’s decision stands as final. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.