13003 V Blokah Pitaniya

School life never come back. U r going to miss ur frnds, lovrs, teachers, campus. A chapter ending.another waits.

1 Haroutinoun Ghokassian (Ghokassian) is a Lebanese who immigrated to the United States in his early thirties. Between 1976 and 1987, he worked here as a sewing machine operator.

However, his physical and mental condition gradually deteriorated until, in June of 1987, he was no longer able to work a full day and thus could not remain at his job. Ghokassian's application for social security benefits was denied. After exhausting his administrative remedies, he brought an action in the district court under 42 U.S.C. 405(g) & 1383(c)(3), which provide for judicial review of the final decisions of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary).

3 Three doctors submitted reports that, due to Ghokassian's mental and emotional condition, he was incapable of engaging in substantial gainful activity. All three doctors were well-qualified. Each doctor, with the help of an interpreter to ensure the accuracy of his diagnosis, based his conclusion upon a direct examination of Ghokassian. In reaching a contrary conclusion, the Secretary relied upon the qualified suggestion of a first-year resident psychiatrist that Ghokassian was 'malingering,' and the subsequent opinion of a consultative psychologist that was based principally upon that qualified suggestion.

The first-year resident had received a medical degree from the Philippines but, at the time of the hearing, was not listed as possessing any medical license. Moreover, although Ghokassian spoke extremely poor English, the first-year resident did not use an interpreter when obtaining from him the information that formed the basis for the resident's qualified opinion. The consultative psychologist who subsequently 'confirmed' that qualified opinion did not himself examine Ghokassian but relied instead upon the first-year resident's report.

Nevertheless, the district court granted summary judgment, finding that substantial evidence supported the findings of the Secretary. Ghokassian timely appeals to this court. 6 A review of the record makes clear that substantial evidence does not support the finding of the Secretary. To the contrary, substantial evidence compels the opposite conclusion.

In making a finding of malingering and discounting extensive evidence provided by doctors whose qualifications and experience were not disputed by either party, the Secretary relied on the views of two people: Dr. Isidro and Dr. Isidro is a first-year resident who was trained in the Philippines and who apparently did not possess a medical license, at least as of the time of the hearing. More important, he did not use an interpreter in making his evaluation, despite the fact that Ghokassian spoke English so poorly that every other doctor who examined him utilized an interpreter and despite the fact that the administrative hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter.

Kak hochu denjgi trail skazka chitatj. Walter is a clinical psychologist who never directly examined, or administered any tests to, Ghokassian. Although the record reviewed by Dr. Walter revealed that the three doctors who had made clear that Ghokassian was incapable of engaging in substantial gainful activity had used an interpreter in order to obtain the necessary information from him and that the first-year resident who advanced the qualified hypothesis that Ghokassian was malingering had not, Dr. Walter chose to assume that Dr. Isidro's report was accurate and accordingly endorsed the view expressed in the first-year resident's report. The Secretary's evidence is insubstantial at best. 7 In contrast, the evidence supporting Ghokassian's claim, and contradicting the Secretary's finding, is clearly substantial.