Adriana M. de la Torre, NOSSCR Sustaining Member

The Ninth Circuit recently issued a remand on June 12, 2025, in the Lynnae v. Bisignano case.

The Court delivered a strong reminder of how not to evaluate fibromyalgia claims, and why a surface-level read of the record won’t cut it. It’s unpublished but worth a read.

The ALJ in Lynnae had denied benefits, and the district court affirmed. But on appeal, the Ninth Circuit didn’t hesitate to reverse. Let’s unpack why this case was sent back.

Remand, Round Two: Why the ALJ Got It Wrong

1. Misinterpretation of Medical Opinions
   • The ALJ dismissed the opinions of Drs. Lahtinen and Valley, citing “normal strength, reflexes, and no assistive device use.”
   • But as every SSDI attorney handling fibromyalgia knows, normal physical exams don’t negate fibromyalgia. The Ninth Circuit reaffirmed that a person with fibromyalgia can present as alert, oriented, and even strong, and still be significantly impaired.

2. Superficial Symptom Evaluation
   • The ALJ leaned on treatment notes showing pain improvement. But again, the Court emphasized: fibromyalgia waxes and wanes.
   • Temporary relief doesn’t mean sustained improvement or functional recovery.

3. Listing 14.09(D) – Unexplained Conclusions
   • The ALJ offered no rationale for concluding that fibromyalgia didn’t equal the listing. As the Court stated “less than ideal clarity” is one thing, but no explanation at all won’t fly.

4. ADLs and Symptom Testimony
   • The ALJ dismissed Plaintiff’s statements about her limitations based on daily activities, but failed to account for the nuance that she could do these activities only with frequent breaks and time off. That’s not inconsistent with disabling limitations; it’s textbook fibromyalgia.

But my favorite quote of all is this:

Nor are medical records stating that Plaintiff was “alert” and “oriented” during her doctor visits a valid reason. Plaintiff’s being alert and oriented is not inconsistent with the physical limitations given by Drs. Lahtinen and Valley.

Far too often we see ALJs citing “alert” and “oriented” findings to deny claims. It is absolute nonsense, and this case calls that out. 

• If your client has fibromyalgia, frame the record around fluctuation, fatigue, and functional limitation, not just physical exams.
• And if an ALJ skips over the longitudinal context or fails to tie the evidence back to the listings, you may have good appellate ground.

Got any questions? Schedule a consultation with us. I’m here to help. It’s a lot to take in, but we’ll get through it together. After all, navigating these waters is always easier when you’ve got someone to chat with.

This is a guest column. The views expressed in this column are the views of the author alone, and do not represent the views of NOSSCR, NOSSCR’s leadership, or NOSSCR’s staff.