From our private database of 35,800+ case briefs...
Tonapetyan v. Halter
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
242 F.3d 1144 (2001)
Facts
Silva Tonapetyan (plaintiff) applied for Social Security supplemental security income, claiming that she was disabled due to several physical and mental impairments. Following a hearing before an administrative-law judge (ALJ), Tonapetyan’s application was denied. The ALJ concluded that Tonapetyan was not disabled because although she suffered from the nonsevere medically determinable mental impairment, dysthymia, she could perform unskilled work. In reaching that conclusion, the ALJ rejected Tonapetyan’s treating psychiatrist’s opinion that Tonapetyan suffered from chronic schizophrenia and the opinion of an examining psychiatrist who diagnosed Tonapetyan with depressive disorder with psychotic features. The ALJ found that the rejected opinions were not supported by objective clinical findings and were based heavily on Tonapetyan’s subjective complaints. The ALJ relied on the testimony of one of the administration’s medical experts who found, generally, that the rejected medical opinions were ambiguous, confusing, and needed clarity. The ALJ’s decision became the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, William Halter (defendant). A United States district court granted summary judgment in favor of the commissioner, and Tonapetyan appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Canby, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 620,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,800 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
