Full Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 26 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANDREA LYNN BAUTEL, No. 25-2265 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 5:23-cv-02554-ADS v. MEMORANDUM* FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Autumn Dawn Spaeth, Magistrate Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted September 17, 2026 Pasadena, California Before: NGUYEN, R. NELSON, and DESAI, Circuit Judges. Plaintiff-Appellant Andrea Bautel appeals the district court’s decision affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for disability insurance benefits. Bautel argues that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) erroneously found that a significant number of jobs existed for Bautel in the * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. national economy. We agree. We reverse the district court’s ruling and remand with instructions to remand the case to the agency to resolve the parties’ evidentiary dispute in light of our recent decision in Powley v. Bisignano, 169 F.4th 1158 (9th Cir. 2026). In disability benefits determinations, uncontradicted vocational expert (VE) testimony can constitute substantial evidence that a claimant can perform a significant number of jobs in the national economy. Ford v. Saul, 950 F.3d 1141, 1160 (9th Cir. 2020). When a VE’s testimony is contradicted by other evidence, however, the ALJ must address and resolve the inconsistency if the counter evidence is both “significant and probative.” Powley, 169 F.4th at 1166 (cleaned up). Bautel’s counter evidence is both significant and probative. Bautel’s evidence is significant because it suggests that she can perform 16,432 jobs in the national economy, far fewer than the 58,200 jobs the VE estimated. See id.at 1169. Because Bautel’s estimate likely falls below the threshold for finding a significant number of jobs exist in the national economy, “there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of [Bautel’s] proceeding may have been different” had her estimate been credited by the ALJ. White v. Kijakazi, 44 F.4th 828, 837 (9th Cir. 2022). Bautel’s counter evidence is also probative because it was based on reports that listed their methodology and sources, used the same Dictionary of Occupational 2 25-2265 Titles codes used by the VE, and was generated by SkillTRAN’s Job Browser Pro, a data source frequently relied on by the Social Security Administration. See Powley, 169 F.4th at 1167–68; White, 44 F.4th at 837. Because Bautel’s counter evidence was significant and probative, the ALJ was required to address and resolve the inconsistency between the competing sets of evidence. Powley, 169 F.4th at 1169–70. The ALJ addressed the inconsistency, but did not resolve it. The ALJ failed to adequately clarify and develop the record, did not ask the VE to explain the conflict, and did not determine whether the VE’s explanation for the conflict was reasonable. See Zavalin v. Colvin, 778 F.3d 842, 846 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Massachi v. Astrue, 486 F.3d 1149, 1153–54 (9th Cir. 2007)); Buck v. Berryhill, 869 F.3d 1040, 1052 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing Swenson v. Sullivan, 876 F.2d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 1989)). We therefore reverse the district court’s ruling and remand with instructions to remand the case to the agency to resolve the parties’ evidentiary dispute in light of our recent decision in Powley, 169 F.4th at 1169–70. REVERSED AND REMANDED. 3 25-2265