Adriana de la Torre, NOSSCR Sustaining Member

Recycled Decisions, Real Consequences

The Ninth Circuit has made it clear: boilerplate doesn’t belong in disability decisions. In Swanson v. Bisignano (Sept. 30, 2025), the court took issue with an ALJ’s near carbon-copy remand decision and reminded us that meaningful review requires more than cosmetic edits.

Background

Swanson applied for Disability Insurance Benefits, alleging chronic pain and mobility limitations. After his first remand, the ALJ issued a new decision that looked strikingly familiar. The reasoning? Nearly the same as before.

Swanson appealed again, and the Ninth Circuit reversed (again), highlighting the persistent misuse of boilerplate reasoning in ALJ decisions.

Key Issues

1. Medical Opinion Evaluation (20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c)

The ALJ discounted opinions from multiple treating and examining physicians (Drs. Sidhu, Packer, Saue, Staley, and Ford) on grounds that simply didn’t hold up:

• The ALJ claimed the opinions relied on “old” records—but the record showed otherwise.
• He cited Swanson’s daily activities as inconsistent with medical findings—but failed to specify how often or to what extent those activities were performed.
• He ignored context from the treatment notes, which documented increased pain with activity and an abnormal gait.

The Ninth Circuit reiterated that treatment notes must be read in context (Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 2001)) and that daily activities don’t automatically translate to sustained work capacity (Vertigan v. Halter, 260 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2001)).

2. RFC and Step Five Errors

Once the medical opinions fell, so did the foundation of the RFC. The Step Five determination—built on that flawed RFC—could not stand. The court found that the ALJ’s findings lacked substantial evidence.

3. Claimant Testimony

Interestingly, the court upheld the ALJ’s credibility finding. The record was susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, and under the deferential “clear and convincing” standard, the ALJ’s finding survived. A reminder: even when the ALJ errs on other issues, credibility can still hold if adequately supported.

4. Lay Witness Evidence

Swanson failed to show that the lay witness statements would have altered the outcome. The Ninth Circuit found no harmful error here.

The Outcome

The court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Because factual disputes remained unresolved, the Ninth Circuit declined to direct an award of benefits (Treichler v. Comm’r of SSA, 775 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2014)).

But there was a twist, because Judge Callahan dissented in part. She agreed with most of the opinion but found substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s rejection of Dr. Ford’s opinion on mental adaptability.

Practice Pointers for Representatives

• Watch for recycled reasoning on remand. If a new decision mirrors the old one, flag it. SSA must address the prior errors, not just restate them.
• Frame activities of daily living in context. Explain how your client’s reported activities are limited, sporadic, or performed with assistance.
• Be explicit about irrational reasoning. When briefing, clearly explain why an ALJ’s interpretation isn’t rational—don’t assume the court will connect the dots.
• Preserve every issue. Even if the ALJ’s credibility finding seems weak, build your argument carefully. The Ninth Circuit continues to uphold those findings when they’re minimally supported.

Final Thoughts

Swanson is a reminder that a remand is not a reset button, it’s a mandate for meaningful reconsideration. As practitioners, we can use this case to push for decisions grounded in individualized analysis, not recycled text.

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.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the views of NOSSCR, its leadership, or staff.

---