Looza

MEMORANDUM **

The ALJ discounted Dr. Bhatti’s October 20, 2005 “mental residual functional capacity form” on the ground that it was inconsistent with specific portions of Dr. Bhatti’s progress notes. The ALJ cited four aspects of the progress notes: Loo-za’s condition was stable with current medications, his mood was described using the phrase “almost no depression,” his medications were helping to reduce his symptoms, and he was doing reasonably well. Despite the dissent’s contention, the ALJ’s interpretation shows he read the treatment notes “in full and in context.” Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, 1205 (9th Cir.2001). The ALJ’s explanations constitute specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record for discounting the “mental residual functional capacity form” prepared by Dr. Bhatti. 1 Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 856 (9th Cir.2001). Although the ALJ referenced but did not specifically reject Dr. Bhatti’s September 15th letter, the letter was cumulative of the progress notes and the October 20th form.

The ALJ gave specific, clear and convincing reasons for his determination that Looza was not credible. Among other reasons, the ALJ…

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent.

Dr. Bhatti’s progress notes opine that Looza’s mood is “improved” and report Looza’s self-assessment of “almost no depression.” These snippets are not “specific and legitimate reasons” for rejecting Dr. Bhatti’s subsequent opinion that Looza is unable to work because they are not inconsistent with this subsequent opinion. See Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir.1996). There would be an inconsistency meriting disbelief if the progress notes stated that Looza was ready to return to work and another opinion stated that Loo-za’s mental disorders prevented him from working. See id. at 833 . But Dr. Bhatti’s progress notes do not discuss his ability to work, just that he was improving, and we have held in a similar context that comments about a patient’s improvement are an insufficient basis for denying such a claim. See Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, 1204-05 (9th Cir.2001); Lester, 81 F.3d at 833 ; see also Rodriguez v. Bowen, 876 F.2d 759, 763 (9th Cir.1989); Rhodes v. Schweiker, 660 F.2d 722, 723 (9th Cir.1981). It was error for the ALJ not to read comments such as “doing much better with meds” in the context of Looza’s diagnosis…