Haroutinoun GHOKASSIAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donna E. SHALALA, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee

41 F.3d 1300 46 Soc.Sec.Rep.Ser. 191, Unempl.Ins.Rep. (CCH) P 14241B Haroutinoun GHOKASSIAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donna E. SHALALA, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee. No. 93-55188. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted July 11, 1994. Decided Dec. 2, 1994. Stephanie M. Simpson, Northridge, CA, for plaintiff-appellant. Kaladharan M.G. Nayar, Asst. Regional Counsel, Dept. of Health and Human Services, for defendant-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Before: POOLE and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges, TANNER, * District Judge. REINHARDT, Circuit Judge: I. BACKGROUND 1 Haroutinoun Ghokassian (Ghokassian) is a Lebanese who immigrated to the United States in his early thirties. Between 1976 and 1987, he worked here as a sewing machine operator. However, his physical and mental condition gradually deteriorated until, in June of 1987, he was no longer able to work a full day and thus could not remain at his job. Ghokassian's application for social security benefits was denied. After exhausting his administrative remedies, he brought an action in the district court under 42 U.S.C.…

I. BACKGROUND

Haroutinoun Ghokassian (Ghokassian) is a Lebanese who immigrated to the United States in his early thirties. Between' 1976 and 1987, he worked here as a sewing machine operator. However, his physical and mental condition gradually deteriorated until, in June of 1987, he was no longer able to work a full day and thus could not remain at his job. Ghokassian’s application for social security benefits was denied. After exhausting his administrative remedies, he brought an action in the district court under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405 (g) & 1383(c)(3), which provide for judicial review of the final decisions of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary).

The Social Security Act provides that, in order to qualify for benefits, an applicant *1302 must establish an “inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than twelve months.” 42 U.S.C. §§ 423 (d)(1)(A) & 1382(a)(3)(A) (emphasis added).

Three doctors submitted reports that, due to Ghokassian’s mental and emotional condition, he was incapable of engaging in substantial…

dissenting:

The sole issue in this case is whether the Secretary’s decision to deny benefits to Gho-kassian was supported by substantial evidence, not to determine the credibility of the medical testimony. Because I conclude that the Secretary presented substantial evidence, I respectfully dissent.

As indicated, our role on review is limited to determining whether the Secretary’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. Allen v. Heckler, 749 F.2d 577, 579 (9th Cir.1984). As the majority correctly notes, “we review the administrative record as a whole, weighing both the evidence that supports and [that which] detracts from the ALJ’s conclusion.” Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 750 (9th Cir.1989) (internal quotations omitted). The ALJ may reject either an expert’s report or a treating physician’s opinion so long as he provides clear and convincing reasons for doing so. Id. at 751 (treating physician); Coats v. Heckler, 733 F.2d 1338, 1340 (9th Cir.1984) (expert report). The reports of consultative physicians may constitute substantial evidence. Magallanes, 881 F.2d at 752 .

“Where medical testimony is conflicting, however, it is the ALJ’s role to determine credibility…