Burkstrand

dissenting:

The majority disposition holds that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) properly denied Burkstrand’s application for disability and supplemental security income benefits. I respectfully disagree.

First, the ALJ erred in posing a hypothetical to the vocational expert that did not include Burkstrand’s inability to work eight hours in a day. We have held that for a “vocational expert’s testimony to have any value, the hypothetical must set forth all of a Plaintiffs impairments.” Gallant v. Heckler, 753 F.2d 1450, 1456 (9th Cir.1984). Here, the vocational expert’s hypothetical did not include Burkstrand’s inability to work a full day. The validity of the vocational expert’s conclusion is therefore questionable because it was based on an improper hypothetical.

The ALJ also erred by finding that Burkstrand’s complaints of pain and functional limitations were not credible because his daily activities indicated he was able to work. We have repeatedly held that “the mere fact that a plaintiff has carried on certain daily activities ... does not in any way detract from her credibility as to her *181 overall disability. One does not need to be ‘utterly incapacitated’ in order…

MEMORANDUM **

Neil J. Burkstrand appeals from the district court’s affirmance of the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision denying Burkstrand’s application for disability and supplemental security income benefits. We affirm the order of the district court.

Burkstrand raises claims of error with respect to the district court and magistrate court decisions. However, this panel reviews the district court’s decision de novo. De novo review is review “from the same position as the district court.” League of Wilderness Defenders v. Forsgren, 309 F.3d 1181, 1183 (9th Cir.2002); see also United States v. Silverman, 861 F.2d 571, 576 (9th Cir.1988) (“Under the de novo standard of review, we do not defer to the lower court’s ruling but freely consider the matter anew, as if no decision had been rendered below.”). Accordingly, we do not address Burkstrand’s claims particular to the district court and magistrate’s decisions.

The administrative law judge (ALJ) provided clear and convincing reasons for not crediting Burkstrand’s subjective recollection of the symptoms he suffered during the relevant period in 2003. See Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 958-59 (9th Cir.2002) (listing…