9th Circuit upholds denial of Social Security benefits to Mari Alvarez, ruling the ALJ properly…
Alvarez v. Bisignano
Status and record
Your position
Do you support this decision?
An advisory read. Your position on a ruling is citizen opinion; it does not form a citizen mandate and is never a legal appeal.
Civitus citizens
Take a position above to see how verified Civitus citizens are weighing in. Positions stay sealed until you have one of your own.
The Civitus brief
AI analysis
Plain English
9th Circuit upholds denial of Social Security benefits to Mari Alvarez, ruling the ALJ properly discounted her doctors' opinions, her symptom testimony, and correctly assessed the jobs she can perform.
Why it matters
The Ninth Circuit affirmed a lower court decision that sided with the Social Security Administration in denying benefits to Mari Alvarez. The court found that Alvarez had forfeited her challenge to two doctors' opinions by not raising it earlier, that the administrative law judge gave clear and convincing reasons for doubting the severity of her reported symptoms, and that there was no conflict between her work limitations and the jobs identified for her.
Who it affects
This ruling directly affects Mari Alvarez, whose Social Security benefits claim remains denied. More broadly, it is relevant to other Social Security claimants who represent themselves and to those whose cases involve challenges to ALJ credibility findings or vocational expert job recommendations.
What happens next
Current
Decision issued Jul 20, 2026
Unpublished opinion
Next
Possible rehearing
Parties can ask the same court to reconsider. Then: possible supreme court petition.
View possible path
- Decision issued Jul 20, 2026Unpublished opinion
- Possible rehearingParties can ask the same court to reconsider.
- Possible Supreme Court petitionThe Supreme Court takes only a small share of petitions.
Citizens vs Court
Civitus citizens
Sealed
Take a counted position to open the tally.
Appellate court
Decision issued
Jul 20, 2026 · Unpublished opinion
Take a position above to open the comparison.
A comparison of public sentiment with the ruling. Courts are not subject to a citizen mandate, and judges are not elected representatives.
Take action
Courts decide cases; Congress can respond with legislation. Telling your representative is the civic lever here.
Public discussion
Add a tag
Citizen opinion on this ruling, not a rehearing of the case. Similar opinions on this case can open a solution poll.
3 similar opinions open a solution poll
Loading opinions
Deeper context
Long-form analysis, legal background, and source material
Read analysisAnalysis · Source
DEEPER READ
Mari Alvarez, representing herself, appealed a denial of Social Security benefits after an administrative law judge (ALJ) ruled against her. She raised three main challenges: that the ALJ wrongly discounted opinions from her treating doctors, that the ALJ improperly disbelieved her testimony about her symptoms, and that the jobs identified as ones she could perform were not actually compatible with her limitations. On the first issue, the court declined to consider her challenge to the ALJ's treatment of opinions from Drs. Nelson Flores and Cat Dang. Because Alvarez had not raised this argument before the district court, it was considered forfeited, and the court found no reason to make an exception to the general rule against considering issues for the first time on appeal. On the second issue, the court applied the standard that an ALJ must give 'clear and convincing reasons' to discount a claimant's subjective symptom testimony when the claimant's medical conditions could reasonably cause those symptoms. The court found that the ALJ satisfied this standard by pointing to three things supported by the record: conservative treatment including antidepressant medication had reduced Alvarez's symptoms, situational stressors such as her job, a housing dispute with her ex-husband, and her mother's stroke had worsened her symptoms, and her daily activities were inconsistent with the severity she claimed. On the third issue, Alvarez argued her work limitations prevented her from performing the jobs the vocational expert identified. The court disagreed. Her limitations allowed for 'medium work' with only occasional changes to the work setting and occasional decision making. The identified jobs required what is classified as Reasoning Level 2, meaning applying common sense to detailed but straightforward instructions. The court explained that occasional changes to the work setting are different from the variables involved in the tasks themselves, so there was no conflict between her limitations and those jobs. The court unanimously affirmed the denial of benefits. There was no dissent noted in the opinion.
CITATION AND RECORD
Record source: CourtListener
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 20 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARI BERENICE ALVAREZ, No. 24-5705 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 2:23-cv-02508-SSC v. MEMORANDUM* FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Pedro V. Castillo, Magistrate Judge, Presiding Submitted July 15, 2026** Before: BERZON, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Pro se plaintiff Mari Alvarez appeals the district court’s order affirming an administrative law judge’s (“ALJ”) denial of Social Security benefits. She challenges the ALJ’s decisions to (1) discount medical opinions from her treating * 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). physicians, (2) discount her subjective symptom testimony, and (3) adopt the vocational expert’s recommendation as to jobs she could perform. We affirm. “We review the district court’s order affirming the ALJ’s denial of social security benefits de novo and will disturb the denial of benefits only if the decision contains legal error or is not supported by substantial evidence.” Lambert v. Saul, 980 F.3d 1266, 1270 (9th Cir. 2020) (citation and quotations omitted). 1. Alvarez did not challenge the ALJ’s decision to discount the medical opinions of Drs. Nelson Flores and Cat Dang before the district court. We generally will not consider an issue raised for the first time on appeal. Greger v. Barnhart, 464 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir. 2006). No reason to excuse forfeiture exists here. Id. 2. Where, as here, an ALJ concludes a claimant’s medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to cause the claimant’s symptoms, the ALJ must provide “clear and convincing reasons” to discount the claimant’s subjective testimony. Smartt v. Kijakazi, 53 F.4th 489, 497 (9th Cir. 2022). Here, the ALJ found, and the record supports, (1) that conservative treatment, including antidepressant medication, reduced Alvarez’s symptoms; (2) that situational stressors, including Alvarez’s job, her ex-husband’s attempts to evict her, and her mother’s stroke, exacerbated her symptoms; and (3) that Alvarez’s daily activities belied the severity of her symptoms. Because those 2 24-5705 reasons are clear and convincing, the ALJ did not err in discounting Alvarez’s subjective symptom testimony. 3. Alvarez contends the limitations in her residual functional capacity (“RFC”) prevent her from performing the jobs identified by the vocational expert. We do not see a conflict. Alvarez’s RFC limits her to “medium work” with “occasional changes to the work setting and occasional work-related decision making.” The vocational expert identified jobs at Reasoning Level 2, which “require the worker to apply commonsense understanding to carry out detailed but uninvolved written or oral instructions and deal with problems involving a few concrete variables in or from standardized situations.” Stiffler v. O'Malley, 102 F.4th 1102, 1108 (9th Cir. 2024) (citation modified). Occasional changes to the work setting itself “are distinct from situational variables in the tasks being performed.” Id. at 1109–10 (citation modified) (emphasis in original). Alvarez’s RFC does not prevent her from performing work “involving a few concrete variables.” Id. at 1108. AFFIRMED. 3 24-5705
Sources
- Official opinionPrimary record
Public record. Timeline facts only; no accusation of wrongdoing. Advisory citizen opinion does not form a citizen mandate.