Jones

MEMORANDUM **

We review the denial by the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) of Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) benefits for the claimant Mary Jones. Because the facts are familiar to the parties involved, we recount them only as necessary to explain our decision.

1. The ALJ improperly discounted the opinion of the examining psychiatrist, Dr. Freinhar. Generally, “the opinion of an examining physician is ... entitled to greater weight than the opinion of a nonexamining physician.” Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995). Therefore, “[a]n ALJ may reject the testimony of an examining, but non-treating physician, in favor of a nonex-amining, nontreating physician when he gives specific, legitimate reasons for doing so, and those reasons are supported by substantial record of evidence.” Roberts v. Shalala, 66 F.3d 179, 184 (9th Cir.1995) (emphasis added) (citing Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1043 (9th Cir.1995)).

In rejecting Dr. Freinhar’s opinion, the ALJ did not meet this standard. Dr. Freinhar is the only psychiatrist who examined Ms. Jones. Dr. Freinhar diagnosed her with major depressive disorder, atypical bipolar disorder, and psychosis not otherwise…