A supportive medical opinion can help a disability case enormously. But your doctor’s statement that you cannot work does not stand on its own. Social Security reads it against your doctor’s own treatment notes, the examination findings, your reported activities, and everything else in the file.
Your testimony gets the same treatment. You can testify honestly and convincingly about fatigue, pain, or anxiety, and an administrative law judge can still discount what you said because other parts of the record look inconsistent with it.
A recent Ninth Circuit case, Yandrich v. Bisignano, No. 25-4027 (9th Cir. Aug. 11, 2026), shows both problems in one decision. It is unpublished and nonprecedential, so it does not bind Social Security judges outside the 9th Circuit (Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Orgeon and Washington). I am writing about it anyway, because in my opinion the rules it applies are national rules that reach every claim in every state. Thanks to my colleague Adriana de la Torre who wrote about the Yandrich case on her excellent LinkedIn feed.
A strong opinion can be undermined by routine treatment notes
Mr. Yandrich’s attorney submitted favorable opinions from three treating providers – Dr. Jamito, Dr. Wingate, and PA Bolden. The ALJ found all three unpersuasive: they were inconsistent with the “longitudinal record,” including those same providers’ own “unremarkable treatment notes.” The ALJ then credited the opinions of three other sources, Drs. Sacks, Ahn, and Melamed, as better supported. The Ninth Circuit affirmed.
That sequence is the shape most of these cases take. The claimant’s own treating sources lost out to agency sources who never actually treated him, and what beat them was their own charts.
That should worry anyone with a pending claim. An opinion can look airtight in isolation. A doctor writes that you cannot maintain attendance, cannot stay focused, cannot get along with coworkers, cannot finish a normal workday. This seems compelling. But you can still lose if the ALJ looks at the treatment notes and asks whether anything in them supports those conclusions. Continue reading →