*1 have an affirmative dealings, Ms. Cox did not household, “had no idea Ms. Cox profes- husband or the duty question to her pay money per took month it amount of recordkeep- employed about sionals the household.” obligations connected ing practices.3 the bills and bank open Ms. did Cox at the house. She that arrived statements III. CONCLUSION to read and Mr. Cox set them aside this as an construed the court handle. While bankruptcy court erred hold that the curtain of “self-imposed Cox’s example of Ms. inquiry on Deborah duty imposing entirely consistent find it was ignorance,” we any warning signals, Cox. the absence [Mr. Cox] on general reliance with “her circumstances light of all the other matters.” all business handle court, bankruptcy its failure by the was an abuse of discre- discharge Ms. Cox signals warning fact, no there were Accordingly, judgment of the dis- tion. suspicious being justify Cox’s Ms. would case is and this trict court is REVERSED recordkeeping: her husband’s to enter for the district court REMANDED period there was no During critical] [the discharge. judgment of any businesses. Cox’s] of [Mr. tax audit on approached period she was not During this Internal Revenue Service questions or infor-
banks or investors with entities. about the Cox business
mation
Thus, time that the Coxes left prior to the angry
Medford, allegedly escape from to . creditors, “no reason to doubt” Ms. Cox had GHOKASSIAN, Haroutinoun assumption that her husband her reasonable Plaintiff-Appellant, maintaining couple’s busi- properly was accept cannot the bank- ness records. We conclusion that it was unrea- ruptcy court’s SHALALA, Secretary E. Donna person in Ms. situation for a Cox’s sonable Services, Health and Human profes- inquire of her husband and the not to Defendant-Appellee. proper employed about whether sionals he No. 93-55188. bankrupt- being kept.2 As the records were found, actually on her cy she relied court Appeals, Court of United States financial to run all business and husband Ninth Circuit. affairs, knowledge of details of no had July Argued and Submitted affairs, training per- would lacked those inquiry into the mit to make reasonable her 2, 1994. Decided Dec. recordkeeping, and had no warn- adequacy of deficiencies. Absent of her husband’s her husband was not indications that managing couple’s business properly in which courts have denied 3. Unlike those cases court stated that Ms. Cox
2. The district
discharge
executing
who relied
her hus-
anyone
to a wife
failed to assure that
through
responsibilities
handling
she incurred
matters that resulted
business
of business
band's
signed at
hus-
documents she
her
the various
information,
filing
see
in the
of false financial
reasonably
request. She could not
band's
Cir.1987);
Lansford,
e.g.,
I. BACKGROUND (Ghokassian) Haroutinoun Ghokassian is a immigrated Lebanese to the United early States thirties. Between' 1976 sewing he worked here as a ma- However, operator. physical chine until, gradually mental condition deteriorated longer June he was no able to day work a full and thus could not remain job. application for social security benefits was denied. After exhaust- remedies, brought his administrative an action the district court under 1383(c)(3), §§ 405(g) U.S.C. & which judicial for review of the final decisions of the Secretary of Health Human Services (Secretary). Security provides
The Social Act benefits, qualify applicant order to an * Tanner, Washington, sitting by designation. Honorable Jack E. Senior United Judge States District for the Western District of “inability A. the Evidence the Record Review must establish activity by gainful reason a Whole physical or medically determinable mental A makes clear review record expected impairment which can be to last for support that substantial evidence does not *3 period not than continuous of less twelve a Secretary. finding of the To the con the 423(d)(1)(A) §§ & months.” U.S.C. trary, compels oppo the substantial evidence added). 1382(a)(3)(A) (emphasis making finding In of ma site conclusion. a Three doctors submitted due lingering discounting and evidence extensive and emotional condi- to Ghokassian’s mental whose, provided by and qualifications doctors tion, engaging incapable of in sub- he was experience disputed by par were not either gainful activity. All three doctors stantial ty, Secretary the on views of two relied the doctor, well-qualified. Each the with Dr. people: Isidro and Dr. Isi Dr. Walter. accuracy interpreter the help of an ensure first-year dro is a resident was trained who diagnosis, upon conclusion a of his based his in the Philippines apparently and who In direct examination of Ghokassian. reach- license, possess medical at as of the least conclusion, contrary Secretary ing a the re- hearing. of important, time the More he did qualified suggestion upon the of a first- lied interpreter making not use an his evalua year psychiatrist that resident tion; spoke fact despite the that. Ghokassian subsequent “malingering,” opin- and the was English poorly every that so other doctor psychologist was ion of consultative that interpreter who him examined utilized an qualified sugges- principally upon that based despite and fact that the the administrative first-year had tion. resident received was conducted the assistance but, degree Philippines the medical from psy interpreter. an Dr. Walter is a clinical hearing, not time' of the listed as the examined, chologist directly who never Moreover, license. possessing' medical to, Al administered tests Ghokassian. although spoke extremely poor though the record reviewed Dr. Walter did English, first-year the resident not use revealed the three who had that doctors obtaining from him an the incapable made that clear Ghokassian was that the basis information formed for the engaging gainful activity had ’substantial qualified opinion. The consultative resident’s an used to obtain the order psychologist subsequently “confirmed” who necessary information from him and that the qualified opinion that did himself exam- first-year quali resident who advanced instead ine Ghokassian but relied hypothesis fied that malin Nevertheless, report. first-year resident’s not, gering had Dr. to assume Walter chose judg- granted summary the district court Dr. that accurate and ment, finding that substantial evidence accordingly expressed endorsed view ported Secretary. Gho- report. resident’s The Secre timely appeals kassian to this court. tary’s evidence is insubstantial at best. II. ANALYSIS contrast, In supporting the evidence Gho- claim, contradicting kassian’s and the Secre-
We review district court’s decision de tary’s clearly question finding, is novo. The before us is substantial.' Unlike whether Walter, supports Secretary’s Dr. substantial evidence Isidro and all three doctors deny Miller v. directly decision to benefits. who examined Ghokassian with the (9th Cir.1985). reaching In deter- assistance of before question, mining repeatedly that have conclusions that his we medical physical psychiatric that “we rec- was such held review administrative condition whole, gain- weighing ord as a both the evidence could not supports activity. possessed ful of those which] detracts Two doctors [that Magallanes degrees significant experience medical the ALJ’s conclusion.” v. Bow- (9th Cir.1989) en, field; doctor, (empha- psychol- F.2d the other a clinical (internal added) Walter, performed objective quotations ogist sis like accuracy directly indirectly tests on Ghokassian ensure the decision upon Dr. Isi- diagnosis, qualified of his unlike Doctor dro’s conclusions.
merely
reports about him.
read some
Treating Physician
B.
Thus, when one examines the record
aas
concluding
addition to
whole,
it is clear that the
lacked
sup
determinations were not
support
findings.
substantial evidence to
her
ported by
evidence,
we also hold
highly qualified
The three
doctors who con-
that the
legal
ALJ committed a
error when
capable
cluded
Ghokassian was not
grant
he failed to
deference to the conclu
gainful activity
did so
Sweel,
sions of Dr.
treating
contact,
trustworthy
based
direct
exam-
physician.
consistently
This court has
af
inations,
contrast,
objective
tests.
*4
forded
treating physician
of the
supporting
Secretary’s finding
evidence
weight
and advised the
malingering
Ghokassian was
consisted
Curry
she must do so as well.
v. Sulli
solely
qualified
conclusion of a first-
van,
(9th
1127,
Cir.1990).
925 F.2d
In
year resident who did not utilize an inter-
deed,
recognized
we have
that the ALJ
preter
in obtaining
the information
disregard the conclusions of
treating phy
based,
diagnosis
which his
and the sub-
“only
sician
the ALJ makes
set
sequent
diag-
“confirmation” of that tainted
if
ting
specific,
forth
legitimate reasons for do
psychologist
nosis
who never had
ing so that are based on substantial evidence
contact
principal-
with Ghokassian and relied
Heckler,
in the record.” Miller v.
770 F.2d
ly upon
resident.
845,
(and
ALJ’s)
The
claim that
Dr. Sweel is without doubt Ghokassian’s
significant
among
there was
conflict
the doc-
treating physician. He saw Ghokassian
concerning
ability
tors
to com-
period
twice within
preceding
a 14-month
municate,
education, memory,
his
his
and his
and,
hearing
significantly, Ghokassian saw no
thoughts about suicide is without merit. The
physicians
other
during
period.
More
supported
doctors whose
Ghokas-
important,
requested
Ghokassian
that Dr.
sian’s claim
in
agreement.
him,
Sweel treat
and Dr.
prescribed
Sweel
They
only
concurred that Ghokassian had
drugs for Ghokassian. Ghokassian subse-
grade
fourth
education and that he encoun-
quently listed Dr.
treating phy-
Sweel as his
significant
tered
in speaking
difficulties
En-
sician, and Dr. Sweel referred to Ghokassian
glish
remembering past
and in
events.1 The
“my patient.”
Dr. Sweel is also the doctor
only
“conflict”
the record arose from Dr.
with the most
contact
extensive
with Ghokas-
report.
only
doctor
sian.
have accorded
We
deference
treat-
examining
not to have used an
ing physicians precisely
they
because
are the
Ghokassian, concluded from his discussion
“greater opportunity
doctors with
to observe
with the claimant
grade
that he had a twelfth
patient.” Murray
and know the
v.
adequate
education and
anwas
historian of
(9th Cir.1993) (internal
499,
722 F.2d
events, despite the doctor’s admission that
quotation
Dr. Sweel’s conclusions
spoke only
English.
Ghokassian
broken
It is
clear;
concerning
report-
apparent
least,
respect
this
separate
ed on two
occasions
Isidro was mistaken.2 Because Dr. Isidro
capable
was “not
did not use an
and did not com-
gainful activity.”
effectively
municate
we find
disregarding
justifications
that the ALJ
only
provided
erred
the find-
the ALJ
ings
basing
discounting
of the three other doctors and
his
for
the evidence of Dr. Sweel
us,
only
1.
incidentally,
The ALJ raised
one issue
which
The record does not tell
how
supporting
doctors
greed
Ghokassian's claim disa-
poorly
spoke English,
well or
Dr. Isidro
and thus
spoken
Ghokassian had
of sui-
we do not consider that fact here.
—whether
during
cide to them
the examination. That he
possibility
mentioned the
to one but not
all
justify
doctors does not
doubts as
his credibili-
ty-
disability
expediting
importance of
the first
for
he saw Ghokassian
were that
at 1401.
than a
claims.
Id.
a little more
time
June
point we have
year before
—a
especially
to be
rele-
find three cases
not iden-
that he did
already discussed —and
Bowen,
v.
our decision. Winans
vant to
accompa-
interpreter who
tify by name the
(9th Cir.1988),
we
In do-
examinations.
nied
support the
evidence did not
that substantial
so,
legal error.
committed clear
Secretary’s findings because the ALJ
disbelieving the
specific reasons for
absolutely
requirement
no
for
is
There
remanding
than
treating physician. Rather
list the name of an
treating physician to
accepted the
proceedings,
further
we
for
submitting
report, nor
opinion and ordered the
treating physician’s
require-
for such a
perceive
need
can we
Sprague
payment of
Id.
benefits.
finding
a failure
based on
ment. An adverse
Bowen,
Cir.
1230-32
repre-
identify
interpreter does not
to so
1987),
legiti-
benefits because no
we awarded
“specific, legitimate reason[]
[the
sent a
disregarding
given for
mate reasons were
...
on substantial evidence
based
decision]
Secretary’s deci-
physician’s opinion and the
Miller,
verse the district court’s decision and remand tors stating submitted that Ghokas- so that the benefits Ghokassian seeks be incapable sian awarded. The district court shall remand gainful activity due to his mental and appropri- this case to the with the condition, emotional a consultative ate instructions to ensure Ghokassian’s psychiatrist, opined that pos- request granted. for benefits is sibly “malingering,” might improve "with appropriate treatment. AND REMANDED.
REVERSED
psychologist,
a clinical
Poole,
Judge, dissenting:
Circuit
reviewed Ghokassian’s medical records and
disability
observed him at
hearing,
cited
sole issue
this case is whether the
numerous inconsistencies in the records re-
Secretary’s
deny
decision to
benefits Gho-
garding
ability
communicate,
Ghokassian’s
supported by
kassian was
substantial evi-
memory,
education,
suicidal
dence,
credibility
not to determine the
Furthermore,
thoughts.
the ALJ noted
testimony.
medical
Because I conclude that
prior
application
for benefits
Secretary presented
evidence,
(which
previous year-
was denied and
respectfully
I
dissent.
appealed),
alleged
never
he neither
a mental
indicated,
As
our role on review is limited
impairment nor did the medical records dis-
determining
whether the
deci-
impairment.
close such an
prior
At the
dis-
*6
supported by
sion is
substantial evidence.
(before
ability hearing
ALJ),
the same
Gho-
Heckler,
Allen v.
749 F.2d
579
signs
kassian showed no
of discomfort or
notes,
majority correctly
As the
distress;
merely overweight.
he was
“we review the administrative record
aas
The ALJ also noted that the three doctors
whole, weighing
both the evidence that
who examined
the summer of
ports
[that which]
and
detracts from the
alleged
recommended treatment for his
Bowen,
Magallanes
ALJ’s conclusion.”
impairment.
mental
Ghokassian did not seek
(9th Cir.1989) (internal
the recommended treatment. Dr.
omitted).
quotations
may reject
The ALJ
however,
examined Ghokassian December
expert’s report
treating physi-
either an
or a
impairment.
1987 and found no severe mental
opinion
long
provides
cian’s
so
as he
clear
Finally,
convincing
doing
reasons for
so. Id. at
testimony regarding
alleged psychiatric
physician);
(treating
Coats v.
impairment
exaggerated,
at the
(9th Cir.1984)
(expert
self-serving,
unsupported by
the record.
report).
physi-
The
of consultative
cians
constitute substantial evidence.
if any
The ALJ concluded
even
Magallanes,
considerable information to obtain
used not. Dr. Isidro did familiar the ALJ was question,
Without all the doctors and qualifications
with opinion was entitled
decided that Dr. indicated that Dr. Isidro weight.
to more to communicate was able Because the ALJ English.
him in broken legitimate reasons for
provided specific testimony Dr. over the Isidro
favoring the we should second-
treating physicians, by im- credibility determinations
guess his qualifications of scrutinizing the
permissibly Magallanes, 881 F.2d at
each doctor. See Allen,
752-53;
I conclude would denying evidence for bene-
vided
fits to Ghokassian.' GREENSTREET; Dotti Green
Robert Cindy
street; Billy Greenstreet; Francis Greenstreet, PIaintiffs-Appel
Ehlinger
lants, *7 BERNARDINO; Floyd OF SAN
COUNTY
Tidwell, Sheriff; Dana San Bernardino
Williams, Sheriff; Deputy Michael Mas Sasseen; Sheriff;
cetti, Deputy Scott Sheriff; Buzzard, Powell, Deputy
John Zehms, Deputy Deputy; William
Senior Hauer, Sheriff;
Sheriff; Deputy Steve Sheriff; Estrada, Deputy Navarro,
Greg Sheriff, Hebden, Deputy
Deputy; Dave
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 93-55733. Appeals,
United States Court
Ninth Circuit. Aug.
Argued and Submitted 1994. Dec.
Decided