Olson v. Bisignano

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: June 15, 2026
• Docket: 25-434
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 15 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CRYSTAL L. OLSON, No. 25-434 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 3:24-cv-05351-BAT v. MEMORANDUM* FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Brian Tsuchida, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 10, 2026** Portland, Oregon

Before: CHRISTEN, HURWITZ, and BADE, Circuit Judges

Crystal L. Olson appeals the district court’s order affirming the

Commissioner’s denial of her application for supplemental security income under

Title XVI of the Social Security Act. We review de novo the district court’s

* 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). decision, Miskey v. Kijakazi, 33 F.4th 565, 570 (9th Cir. 2022), and determine

whether the decision of the administrative law judge (ALJ) is supported by

substantial evidence and free of legal error, Shaibi v. Berryhill, 883 F.3d 1102,

1106 (9th Cir. 2017). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

1. The ALJ did not err in weighing the medical opinions. The ALJ

articulated specific and legitimate reasons for discounting some medical opinions

and crediting others, see Smartt v. Kijakazi, 53 F.4th 489, 494 (9th Cir. 2022),

including that some opinions were inconsistent internally or with Olson’s

statements, her self-reported activities, her minimal and conservative treatment,

and the objective medical evidence. See Ford v. Saul, 950 F.3d 1141, 1154–56

(9th Cir. 2020). Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s assessment. See Burch v.

Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Where evidence is susceptible to

more than one rational interpretation, it is the ALJ’s conclusion that must be

upheld.”).

2. Nor did the ALJ err in discounting Olson’s symptom testimony. The

ALJ determined that Olson’s testimony was inconsistent with the record, including

the medical record, her conservative and minimal mental treatment, and her

activities of daily living. These are specific, clear and convincing reasons to

discount her testimony. See Smartt, 53 F.4th at 498 (“When objective medical

evidence in the record is inconsistent with the claimant’s subjective testimony, the

2 25-434 ALJ may indeed weigh it as undercutting such testimony.”); Rounds v. Comm’r

Soc. Sec. Admin., 807 F.3d 996, 1006 (9th Cir. 2015) (“To assess a claimant’s

credibility, the ALJ may consider . . . ‘ordinary techniques of credibility

evaluation,’ ‘inadequately explained failure to seek treatment or to follow a

prescribed course of treatment,’ and ‘the claimant’s daily activities.’” (quoting

Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1284 (9th Cir. 1996))).

3. The ALJ also did not err in discounting the lay witness testimony of

Olson’s friend and her therapist. The ALJ determined that their testimony was not

consistent with Olson’s conservative treatment, the objective medical record, or

her daily activities. Additionally, because the ALJ offered clear and convincing

reasons for rejecting Olson’s testimony, those same reasons are necessarily

germane to her friend’s statements, which mirrored Olson’s subjective complaints.1

See Valentine v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 694 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

1 Olson’s remaining claims of error are derivative of her arguments relating to the ALJ’s assessment of the evidence and therefore also fail. See Stubbs-Danielson v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 1169, 1175–76 (9th Cir. 2008) (explaining that a claimant does not establish that an ALJ’s step-five finding is incorrect by restating her arguments that the ALJ improperly discounted certain evidence).

3 25-434