McCollough

MEMORANDUM **

Wade McCollough appeals the district court’s order affirming the Commissioner’s final decision denying him disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-34 , 1381-83f. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we reverse.

We review de novo the district court’s order affirming the Commissioner’s denial of benefits. Webb v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 683, 685-86 (9th Cir.2005). We affirm the ALJ’s determination so long as the ALJ applied the correct legal standards and substantial evidence supports the decision. Id. at 686 .

We conclude that substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s determination *926 at Step 2 of the sequential analysis that McCollough did not suffer any severe medical impairments that limited his ability to work. The ALJ improperly relied on McCollough’s asserted somatic dysfunction to find that his claims of pain and symptoms were exaggerated, and therefore not credible. McCollough’s somatic condition, however, supports the opposite conclusion. Cf. Carradine v. Barnhart, 360 F.3d 751, 754 (7th Cir.2004) (“If pain is disabling, the fact that its…