Bain

MEMORANDUM **

Karen Bain appeals a district court judgment rejecting her challenge to the Commissioner’s decision denying her claim for social security benefits. Bain argues that the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) erred by: (1) basing the step-five determi *545 nation on a hypothetical to the vocational expert (“VE”) that failed to include all of the limitations enumerated by the ALJ in the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) finding; (2) improperly discrediting opinions from a number of medical sources, including (a) an examining physician, (b) state agency physicians, and (c) a nurse practitioner; (3) discrediting lay witness testimony; and (4) discrediting Bain’s testimony regarding the extent of her impairment. The facts are known to the parties and we do not repeat them here. For the reasons enumerated below, we reverse the district court’s judgment and remand to the agency for additional findings.

1. Omission of Limitations Contained in the RFC Finding

An ALJ must include all of the claimant’s limitations and restrictions supported by substantial evidence in the hypothetical to the VE; otherwise, the VE’s opinion regarding work capabilities “has no evi-dentiary value.”…