Full Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 2 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TIMMY COOPER, No. 25-2817 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 2:24-cv-00218-SMB v. MEMORANDUM* FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Susan M. Brnovich, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 29, 2026** Before: GRABER, HURWITZ, and BADE, Circuit Judges. Timmy Cooper appeals a district court judgment affirming a decision by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denying his application for Social Security disability insurance benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We * 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). review the district court’s decision de novo and will disturb the denial of benefits only if the ALJ’s decision contains legal error or is not supported by substantial evidence. Nadon v. Bisignano, 145 F.4th 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 2025). We vacate and remand. When considering “whether a claimant is disabled, an ALJ must consider lay witness testimony concerning a claimant’s ability to work.” Stout v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 454 F.3d 1050, 1053 (9th Cir. 2006). An ALJ must provide “germane reasons” for discounting lay witness statements. Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1218 (9th Cir. 2005). After the ALJ and the district court issued their decisions, we decided Fain v. Bisignano, ___ F.4th ___, No. 25-3219, 2026 WL 2795427 (9th Cir. Sept. 18, 2026), holding that the revisions to a Social Security Administration regulation, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c, did not abrogate the “‘germane reasons’ standard for discrediting lay testimony in cases, like this one, involving claims filed on or after March 27, 2017.” Id. at *5. In Fain, we concluded that the ALJ erred by failing to provide any reasons for discrediting lay witness statements and remanded for further proceedings before the agency. Id. at *6–7. The same error occurred here. The ALJ mentioned the evidence provided by the lay witnesses but gave no reasons for discounting it. As in Fain, we vacate and remand to the district court with instructions to remand to the agency for further 2 25-2817 proceedings.1 See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). VACATED AND REMANDED. 1 We do not address Cooper’s other asserted errors because the ALJ’s review of the record and Cooper’s claim on remand may be informed by its consideration of the lay witnesses’ statements. 3 25-2817