## Facts

- Silva Tonapetyan applied for Supplemental Security Income alleging disability from physical and mental impairments.
- Treating and examining psychiatrists diagnosed serious mental disorders, including chronic schizophrenia and depressive disorder with psychotic features.
- The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found only a nonsevere mental impairment (dysthymia) and concluded she could perform unskilled work.
- The ALJ discounted Tonapetyan’s testimony as not credible and, based on that finding, also discounted medical opinions that relied substantially on her self-reports.
- The ALJ rejected treating and examining psychiatric opinions as lacking objective clinical support and relied heavily on a non-examining medical expert who described the psychiatric evidence as ambiguous and in need of clarification.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the Commissioner, affirming the denial of benefits; Tonapetyan appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the ALJ’s credibility determination and resulting discounting of subjective symptom testimony were legally proper.
2. Whether the ALJ permissibly rejected treating and examining psychiatric opinions in favor of a non-examining medical expert.
3. Whether the ALJ breached the duty to develop the administrative record, particularly regarding Tonapetyan’s mental impairments when the evidence was ambiguous or inadequate.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded with instructions to remand to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings.
- The court held the ALJ failed to develop the record fully and fairly concerning Tonapetyan’s mental impairment.
- The court stated that although the ALJ’s stated credibility reasons were not flawed on the existing record, credibility might require reassessment after proper development of the mental-health evidence.

## Legal Principles

- An ALJ has an independent duty to develop the record fully and fairly, including when the claimant is represented by counsel.
- The duty to develop the record is triggered when evidence is ambiguous or the record is inadequate to allow proper evaluation, and it is especially important where mental impairment may affect the claimant’s ability to present evidence.
- When medical evidence is described as unclear or in need of clarification, the ALJ should seek additional evidence (e.g., further psychiatric evaluation, clarification from medical sources, or additional testimony) rather than resolve the ambiguity against the claimant.
- Credibility findings that materially affect residual functional capacity and the weighing of medical opinions may need reconsideration on remand if further development of mental-impairment evidence changes the evidentiary picture.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit required further proceedings because the ALJ used ambiguity in psychiatric evidence to discount treating and examining opinions without first taking reasonable steps to clarify the record, necessitating remand for additional development and potential reassessment of credibility and disability findings.


Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2001)