Kruchek

MEMORANDUM *

William Kruchek appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the denial of his applications for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB). He contends that the finding of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) that Krueheck was not disabled because he was capable of “mak[ing] a successful vocational adjustment to work which exists in significant numbers in the national economy” is not supported by substantial evidence or free of legal error. We reverse and remand.

I. Legal Standard for “Disabled”

The five-stage procedure used to evaluate disability claims is set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 :

Batson v. Comm’r, 359 F.3d 1190, 1194 (9th Cir.2004) (citations to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 omitted). The burden of proof is on Kruchek for the first four prongs, but on the agency for the fifth, if the analysis reaches that stage. Morgan v. Sullivan, 945 F.2d 1079, 1080 (9th Cir.1991).

II. Step-Three Determination

Kruchek contends that the ALJ erred at step three both (1) by failing to explain his analysis and (2) by failing to call a medical expert (“ME”) to decide whether the claimant’s combination of im *827 pairments is equivalent to a…