Mata
Mata v. Barnhart
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Ezequiel Mata appeals the district court’s judgment granting summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner. 1 We affirm.
I
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) engaged in a sufficient inquiry regarding Dr. Geary’s evaluative process to satisfy the ALJ’s duty fully and fairly to develop the record, ensure that the claimant’s interests are considered, and resolve doubts regarding ambiguous evidence by conducting an appropriate inquiry. See Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144, 1150 (9th Cir.2001). The ALJ did not err in considering Dr. Geary’s report, as the opinions Dr. Geary expressed were his own even though he relied on test and interview data gathered by a Spanish-speaking psychometrician. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404 .1519g, 404.1519j, 416.919g, 416.919j.
II
The ALJ was entitled to rely on the opinions of Drs. Drink water and Geary as substantial evidence that Mata was not permanently disabled because their opinions were based upon independent clinical findings that contradicted the opinions of Drs. Arik and Bencomo. See Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir.1995); Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 750 (9th Cir.1989).