Phimmasone

MEMORANDUM *

Sakhone Phimmasone appeals the district court’s affirmance of the Social Seeu *623 rity Commissioner’s determination that Phimmasone was not entitled to disability insurance benefits.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) did not err in Step 3 of the five-step procedure for determining disability benefits because Phimmasone failed to offer evidence that he met or equaled any of the listed impairments, 12.02, 12.04, or 12.05. See 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1; see also Roberts v. Shalala, 66 F.3d 179, 182 (9th Cir.1995).

The ALJ did err in Step 4, which requires a calculation of the claimant’s residual functional capacity (RFC). The ALJ made no mention whatsoever of Dr. Read’s comments regarding Phimmasone’s inability to work. The ALJ cannot disregard the testimony of an examining physician without providing specific and legitimate reasons for doing so. Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir.1995).

In addition, the ALJ erred by failing to offer specific and cogent reasons for his rejection of Phimmasone’s subjective pain testimony. Phimmasone’s repeated head injuries and numerous doctors’ diagnoses constituted objective medical evidence that established a…