Finley

MEMORANDUM ****

James Finley appeals the district court’s summary judgment affirming the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ’s) denial of Social Security disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Title II and Title XVT, respectively. We review de novo the district court’s judgment affirming a denial of social security benefits. Frost v. Barnhart, 314 F.3d 359, 366-67 (9th Cir.2002). Because the ALJ did not consider the framework of the medical-vocational guidelines in evaluating the vocational expert’s testimony, we remand for further consideration.

First, Finley contends that the ALJ failed properly to accord controlling weight to the medical opinion of Finley’s treating physician. If the treating doctor’s opinion is contradicted by another doctor, the Commissioner may not reject this opinion without providing “specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record for so doing.” Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830-31 (9th Cir.1995). “The ALJ can meet this burden by setting out a detailed and thorough summary of the facts and conflicting clinical evidence stating his interpretation thereof and making findings.” Magallanes v. Bowen,…