Yang
Yang v. Barnhart
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Petitioner Betty V. Yang (‘Yang”) filed an application for Supplemental Security Income on January 5, 2001. Yang claimed she suffered from back pain, fainting, leg pain, low number of red blood cells, and depression. On January 24, 2003, an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) found that Yang was not disabled and thus not entitled to supplemental security benefits. Yang appealed to the Appeals Council, submitting new evidence, but her appeal was denied. Thereafter she filed suit in the District Court for the Eastern District of California, but on February 23, 2005, the court issued an order affirming the ALJ’s decision.
Because the parties are familiar with the remaining facts and procedural history, we do not restate them here except as necessary to explain our disposition.
I.
We review the district court’s order de novo. Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 954 (9th Cir.2002). By contrast we review the ALJ’s decision deferentially. A decision by the ALJ must be affirmed if supported by substantial evidence. See Green v. Heckler, 803 F.2d 528, 529 (9th Cir. 1986). Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a…
Dissenting Opinion
Fletcher, J.
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. We are required, when reviewing the decision of an administrative agency with deference, to “consider the entire record as a whole and may not affirm simply by isolating a ‘specific quantum of supporting evidence.’ ” Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 882 (9th Cir.2006) (quoting Hammock v. Bowen, 879 F.2d 498, 501 (9th Cir.1989)). The record as a whole does not support the ALJ’s decision.
The majority cites as a “specific and legitimate” reason for rejecting the opinions of both Dr. Barnett, an examining physician, and Dr. Melashenko, Yang’s treating physician, the contradictory opinions of other doctors. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (2006). A contradicting opinion is grounds for imposing a lower standard to discredit a physician’s opinion. See Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir.2002). It is not by itself, except in narrow circumstances, grounds for dismissing a physician’s opinion. See Murray v. Heckler, 722 F.2d 499, 501-02 (9th Cir.1983); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 .
The other reasons offered by the panel as supporting the ALJ’s decision fail. First, much of the evidence in a patient *413 diagnosed with depression will…