Buchholz
Buchholz v. Barnhart
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Dennis Buchholz appeals the district court’s affirmance of the Social Security *775 Commissioner’s decision denying his application for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income payments.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s affirmance of the Commissioner’s denial of benefits. Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir.1999). Since we conclude that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred at steps three, four, and five of the sequential disability evaluation process, we reverse the judgment of the district court and remand to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with this memorandum disposition.
At step three of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ held that Buchholz “has no impairment which meets the criteria of any of the listed impairments,” based on his view that no “treating or examining physician has mentioned findings equivalent in severity to the criteria of any listed impairment.” The ALJ erred in two respects: (1) he improperly rejected the testimony of Buchholz’s treating physician, and (2) he applied an incorrect legal standard.