Mehdi

MEMORANDUM **

Soraya Mehdi appeals the district court’s summary judgment upholding the *676 Commissioner of the Social Security Administration’s denial of her application for Social Security disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g). We review de novo the district court’s decision, and we review for substantial evidence and legal error the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) decision. Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir.1999). We conclude that substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s finding, which discredited the treating physician’s report and Medhi’s subjective complaints of disabling pain. See id. at 1098 . We reverse and remand.

The ALJ failed to give specific and legitimate reasons for rejecting the treating physician’s opinion, which concluded that Medhi is disabled from working. See Edlund v. Massanari, 253 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir.2001).

The ALJ also failed to provide clear and convincing reasons for rejecting Medhi’s testimony. See Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821 , 834 (9th Cir.1995).

First, because Medhi provided evidence of an underlying impairment, she…