Hill

*665 MEMORANDUM ***

Hill appeals the district court’s affirmation of the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) denial of her claim for disability benefits arguing that the ALJ improperly discounted the opinions of both her treating and examining physicians, and failed to make findings supported by substantial evidence that she was capable of continuing in her past relevant work. The treating physician’s opinion was properly discounted for being tainted by Hill’s discredited subjective complaints, Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597, 605 (9th Cir.1989), while the examining physician’s opinion in question was a vocational opinion to which the ALJ owed no deference. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (e)(3).

However, in denying Hill’s claim at the fourth step of disability analysis the ALJ evidently failed to reference Pinto v. Massanari, 249 F.3d 840 (9th Cir.2001). The ALJ’s reliance on the vocational expert for findings on Hill’s past relevant work was insufficient since the vocational expert only referenced the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) to describe the duties of Hill’s past work. Id, at 846. The description Hill gave of her past duties did not directly conform to those jobs the vocational…