Barnhart

MEMORANDUM *

Calvin Johnson (“Johnson”) appeals the district court’s order upholding the Social Security Commissioner’s denial of his application for benefits. We reverse and remand to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings.

Johnson contends that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) improperly rejected the medical opinions of his treating physician, Dr. Parrish, and credited those of an examining physician, Dr. Harrington, instead. If the ALJ found that Dr. Harrington relied on “independent clinical findings” in formulating her medical opinions, he could credit her opinions over those of Dr. Parrish. See Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir.1995); Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 751 (9th Cir.1989). If he did not so find, he could disregard Dr. Parrish’s opinion only after “makfing] findings setting forth specific, legitimate reasons for doing so that are based on substantial evidence in the record.” Magallanes, 881 F.2d at 751 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

The ALJ’s order is not sufficiently clear. He rejected Dr. Parrish’s opinion ostensibly because Dr. Parrish did not provide any “objective evidence” or “objective clinical…

dissenting:

I would affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.