Rawlings

MEMORANDUM *

Arthur 0. Rawlings appeals a district court judgment, which affirmed the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision to deny his application for Disability Insurance Benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. Because the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history of this case, we will discuss them only as necessary to explain our decision. We have jurisdiction' pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

We review “de novo the district court’s order affirming the Commissioner’s denial of benefits.” Moisa v. Barnhart, 367 F.3d 882, 885 (9th Cir.2004) (citation omitted). We “may set aside a denial of benefits only if it is not supported by substantial evidence or if it is based on legal error.” Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 954 (9th Cir.2002) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir.2005) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

The Social Security regulations provide a five-step inquiry to determine whether a…