The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a lower court's decision denying Angela L. Castillo's application for disability insurance benefits. The ruling, filed on October 29, 2026, impacts Castillo and others in similar situations who seek benefits based on claims of disability. The court's decision highlights the importance of substantial evidence in disability claims and the standards by which such claims are evaluated.

Angela Castillo filed her application for disability benefits after experiencing health issues, including relapsing and remitting multiple sclerosis (MS) and vitamin B-12 deficiency. Her case was initially reviewed by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), who ultimately denied her claim. Castillo appealed this decision, leading to the recent ruling by the Ninth Circuit.

The dispute centers around whether Castillo's medical conditions sufficiently impaired her ability to work. The ALJ's decision was based on an evaluation of Castillo's medical records, which included examinations and opinions from various medical professionals. Castillo argued that her symptoms warranted a finding of disability, but the ALJ determined that the evidence did not support this claim.

The Ninth Circuit reviewed the case under the legal standards that govern disability claims. The court noted that it could only set aside the ALJ's decision if it was not supported by substantial evidence or if it involved a legal error. The judges emphasized that the ALJ's findings must be upheld if the evidence could be interpreted in more than one rational way.

The court ruled that substantial evidence supported the ALJ's decision to discount medical opinions from Castillo's examinations in September 2022 and June 2023. It stated, "Supportability and consistency are the most important factors" in evaluating medical opinions. The ALJ found that Castillo's neurological examination results were largely unremarkable, despite some reported abnormalities. The consulting physician's opinion that Castillo could perform less than the full range of sedentary work was deemed unsupported and inconsistent with other medical evidence.

In the September 2022 examination, Castillo exhibited normal muscle tone, intact sensation, and normal reflexes, which the ALJ considered when evaluating her claim. The ALJ noted that Castillo's medical history showed normal gait, full strength, and minimal complaints to her healthcare providers. The court agreed with the ALJ's assessment, stating, "The ALJ provided specific reasons for discounting these medical opinions, and Castillo has not identified objective medical evidence that the ALJ overlooked."

The court also supported the ALJ's decision to reject aspects of Castillo's subjective symptom testimony. Castillo claimed she experienced significant weakness, but the ALJ found that her claims conflicted with objective medical evidence showing normal physical examination results. The judges noted that "when objective medical evidence in the record is inconsistent with the claimant’s subjective testimony, the ALJ may indeed weigh it as undercutting such testimony."

Additionally, the ALJ considered Castillo's vitamin B-12 deficiency in its assessment. The court noted that Castillo was noncompliant with treatment and that no medical sources indicated work-related limitations due to her B-12 deficiency. The ALJ determined that the deficiency was not severe enough to limit her ability to work significantly.

In its ruling, the Ninth Circuit emphasized that the ALJ's residual functioning capacity (RFC) assessment adequately accounted for Castillo's conditions. The judges stated, "Substantial evidence supports that Castillo’s B-12 deficiency was not sufficiently severe to functionally limit her ability to work." The court affirmed that the ALJ's rationale was clear and convincing, meeting the required legal standards.

The impact of this ruling extends beyond Castillo, as it reinforces the importance of substantial evidence in disability claims. Individuals seeking disability benefits must provide compelling medical evidence that supports their claims. This case serves as a reminder that subjective testimony must align with objective medical findings to establish a disability.

Going forward, this ruling may influence how similar cases are evaluated in the Ninth Circuit. It sets a precedent regarding the weight given to medical opinions and the necessity for claimants to present consistent and substantial evidence to support their claims. The decision may also affect how ALJs approach cases involving subjective symptom testimony and the evaluation of medical conditions like MS and vitamin deficiencies.

Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether Castillo plans to appeal this decision further. However, the ruling from the Ninth Circuit is significant in the context of disability claims, particularly in how evidence is assessed and the standards that must be met for claims to be successful.