Barnard
Barnard v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM ***
Kathleen Barnard appeals the district court’s decision affirming the Social Security Commissioner’s decision that she was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act and was ineligible for benefits. We affirm.
We review de novo the district court’s order affirming the administrative law judge’s denial of benefits. Lewis v. Apfel, 236 F.3d 503, 509 (9th Cir.2001). The agency’s decision must be affirmed if it was supported by substantia] evidence and *991 based on the application of correct legal standards. See Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir. 2004) .
We reject Barnard’s argument that the ALJ erred by not further developing the record of her psychological and mental impairments. The ALJ’s duty to develop the record fully is triggered when there is ambiguous evidence or when the record is inadequate. See Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, 459-60 (9th Cir.2001). The record for evaluating the claimant’s mental condition during the relevant period was adequately developed by an initial hearing and upon the stipulated remand from the district court. Barnard’s psychological problems were not diagnosed until five years…
Dissenting Opinion
Carroll, J.
dissenting:
Because the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) rejection of Barnard’s treating physician’s opinion and adverse credibility findings of Barnard and her husband were error, I respectfully dissent.
Rejection of Treating Physician’s Opinion
The Majority finds that the ALJ’s rejection of the treating physician’s opinion was supported by substantial evidence in the record for the following reasons: the treating physician’s opinion was inconsistent; clinical observations of two prior physicians did not corroborate with those of the treating physician; and the treating physician relied on Barnard’s subjective complaints.
A. The treating physician’s opinion is not inconsistent.
In December 1998, Kimberly Goslin, M.D., Ph.D., an Assistant Professor of Neurology at the Oregon Health Sciences University in Portland, began treating Plaintiff. According to Dr. Goslin, Barnard’s MRIs, performed at the University, showed “significant abnormalities ... which can certainly explain many of her complaints,” and her “pain makes it difficult to perform a good motor examination ...” Contrary to the ALJ’s assertion, Dr. Goslin’s opinion describing Barnard as “currently fully disabled”…