Morell

MEMORANDUM **

Stephen Morell appeals the district court’s decision remanding to the Social Security Administration his claim for disability benefits. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

A district court’s decision to remand a disability benefits case to the Social Security Administration is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172, 1173 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 121 S.Ct. 628 , 148 L.Ed.2d 537 (2000).

Morell contends that the district court erred in remanding for a new hearing because the record establishes a disability and he does not have transferable skills. The basis of Morell’s argument is the vocational expert’s contradictory testimony regarding whether the position that Morell could perform (companion) is semiskilled or unskilled. The Dictionary of Occupational Titles (“DOT”) classifies the position of companion as semi-skilled, although the vocational expert testified that the position is normally performed as unskilled.

Although the DOT raises a rebuttable presumption as to the classification of a job, the Commissioner “may take administrative notice of any reliable job information, including ... the…