Willis

*10 MEMORANDUM **

Abbie Willis appeals the judgment of the district court affirming the Administrative Law Judge’s denial of Willis’ application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401 et seq., and Supplemental Security Income under Title XVI of the Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381 et seq.

In reaching her decision, the ALJ erroneously rejected the opinion of Willis’ examining physician and instead relied on the non-examining physicians’ opinions. Generally, an examining physician’s opinion carries more weight than a reviewing physician’s. Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir.1995); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (d). The examining physician’s findings can constitute substantial evidence, and the ALJ may reject those findings only for “clear and convincing” reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record. Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 725 (9th Cir.1998). The ALJ faded to meet this standard and her reliance on the reviewing physicians’ opinions was erroneous. 1 We therefore credit the opinion of Willis’ examining physician “as a matter of law.” Lester, 81 F.3d at 834 , citing Hammock v. Bowen, 879 F.2d 498, 502 (9th…