Paden

MEMORANDUM **

Edward J. Paden (“Paden”) appeals the district court’s summary judgment affirming the Commissioner’s decision to terminate his social security disability benefits on the basis of an Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) finding that he was no longer disabled. We review de novo a district court’s order affirming the ALJ’s decision to deny benefits, but may only set aside a denial of benefits if it is based on legal error or it is not supported by substantial evidence. Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 954 (9th Cir.2002). As sub *467 stantial evidence supported the ALJ’s findings regarding Paden’s medical improvement and residual functional capacity, we affirm on these issues. However, because the ALJ failed to include in the hypothetical questions to the vocational expert Pa-den’s borderline intellectual functioning and need for a supportive work environment, we remand for further proceedings at step eight of the eight-step sequential evaluation process. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1594 (f) (explaining the eight-step analytical framework for determining whether a claimant’s disability should be terminated).

I

Paden argues that the ALJ’s finding at step three regarding medical…