F.2d 597, 603 (9th Cir.1989), we have proscribed the rejection of a claimant’s complaints for lack of treatment when the record establishes that the claimant could not afford it, Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1284 (9th Cir.1996). Cf. Gamble v. Chater, 68 F.3d 319, 322 (9th Cir.1995) (“ ‘It flies in the face of the patent purposes of the Social Security Act to deny benefits to someone because he is too poor to obtain medical treatment that may help him.’ ”) (quoting Gordon v. Schweiker, 725 F.2d 231, 237 (4th Cir.1984)). Similarly, because Regennitter established that he can rarely afford prescription medication, the ALJ, in rejecting his testimony, improperly relied on the ground that he “has not required strong analgesic medication ... in recent years.” See Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1284 (<HOLDING>) Moreover, the record repeatedly documents that
holding that plaintiff who disputed her gas bill and refused to pay it could not establish that she was induced to take any action to her detriment holding that the former wife did not waive her attorneyclient privilege simply because the credibility of her claim that she relied on her husbands representations could be impeached by deposing her former attorney holding that threatening employee to mind her own business investigating her videotaping her without her permission and forcing her to take polygraph could not be considered adverse employment actions because they had no effect on conditions of employment holding the claimant established by clear and convincing evidence that her depression was caused by her compensable physical injury holding that because a claimant testified that she had no insurance and could not afford treatment her failure to take medication for her symptoms is not a clear and convincing reason for discrediting her symptom testimony