Kenoyer

Kenoyer v. Barnhart

Good Law
49 F. App'x 173
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 23, 2002No. 01-35469; D.C. No. CV-00-00200-BJRCalifornia519 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Because the administrative law judge failed to fill out a psychiatric review technique form (PRTF) despite Mrs. Kenoyer’s colorable claim of mental impairment, we reverse the judgment of the district court and remand for proceedings consistent with this memorandum.

The regulations in force at the time the administrative law judge decided Kenoyer’s case required her to fill out and attach a PRTF “in any case where there is evidence which indicates the existence of a mental impairment.” 42 U.S.C. § 421 (h); 20 C.F.R. § 404 .1520a(a)-(d)(l) (1998). An administrative law judge’s failure to fill out a PRTF requires reversal if the plaintiff had a “colorable claim of a mental impairment.” Gutierrez v. Apfel, 199 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir.2000). “A colorable claim is one which is not ‘wholly insubstantial, immaterial, or frivolous.” ’ McBride Cotton & Cattle Corp. v. Veneman, 290 F.3d 973, 981 (9th Cir.2002) (quoting Cassim v. Bowen, 824 F.2d 791, 795 (9th Cir.1987)). Dr. Parlatore, the only psychiatrist to examine Kenoyer, noted that she had been treated for depression for three years and that she had some “suicidal ideation.” He diagnosed her with an “adjustment disorder…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.