Nazzal

MEMORANDUM *

The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred by failing to provide “specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record” for crediting the opinion of Dr. DeBolt, a neurologist who did not examine Maha Nazzal, over the opinions of Nazzal’s examining physicians, rheumatologists Dr. Bluestone and Dr. Salick, both of whom diagnosed Nazzal with fibromyalgia, a condition within their area of specialty. Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir.1996) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. § 416.927 (d)(5); Benecke v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 587 , 594 n. 4 (9th Cir.2004). The ALJ also erred “by effectively requiring objective evidence for a disease that eludes such measurement”: fibromyalgia. Benecke, 379 F.3d at 594 (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). Finally, the ALJ erred when he mischaracterized Nazzal’s testimony *593 and failed to provide “clear and convincing” reasons for finding Nazzal’s testimony not credible. Lester, 81 F.3d at 834 .

Because the ALJ did not provide “legally sufficient reasons” for disregarding the opinions of Dr. Bluestone and Dr. Salick, we credit their opinions as true. Benecke, 379 F.3d at…

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent.

For all mental and physical impairments we recognize that the symptoms a patient reports can be exaggerated or false, and give substantial deference to the ALJ’s decision of whether to credit them as true. See Soc. Sec. Ruling 96-7p; Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1284 (9th Cir.1996). A diagnosis of fibromyalgia cannot automatically be beyond challenge. A fibro-myalgia diagnosis is based entirely on the patient’s subjective reports of pain. See Am. Coll, of Rheumatology, Fibromyalgia Diagnostic Criteria, http://www.nfra.net/ Diagnost.htm. The opinions of Nazzal’s examining physicians relied upon what Naz-zal told them. Though such reliance is quite proper for physicians whose task is to heal, the patient’s claims cannot be conclusive for those whose task is to determine who must pay. That physicians are specialists in rheumatology does not make them specialists in assessing credibility; their medical opinions can be no better than the data provided to them by their patient. See Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir.2008). The ALJ gave specific and legitimate reasons for finding Nazzal not credible, and her lack of credibility…