Pilson

MEMORANDUM ***

Terry L. Pilson appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental social security income benefits. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

1. In the vocational hypothetical, the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) properly accounted for Pilson’s lifting limitation and his “deficiencies of concentration, persistence or pace.” However, the ALJ omitted without explanation a moderate limitation in Pilson’s ability to “maintain socially appropriate behavior and to adhere to basic standards of neatness and cleanliness.”

“If a vocational expert’s hypothetical does not reflect all the claimant’s limitations, then the expert’s testimony has no evidentiary value to support a finding that the claimant can perform jobs in the national economy.” Matthews v. Shalala, 10 F.3d 678, 680 (9th Cir.1993) (internal quotation marks omitted). When impairments or limitations are omitted from a hypothetical, a remand for reconsideration after further development of the record is appropriate. See Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1043-44 (9th Cir.1995).

2. The ALJ properly accounted for Pilson’s subjective complaints that he…

dissenting.

Because I am of the view that the omissions in the vocational hypothetical are de minimis, I would affirm the judgment of the district court. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.