Gardner

MEMORANDUM ***

Appellant King Gardner sought judicial review of the Commissioner’s final decision denying his application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-33 . The district court affirmed the Commissioner’s denial of benefits, and Gardner appeals. 1 Gardner claims that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) erred by (1) basing his step-two 2 determination on an erroneous reading of the medical evidence and (2) basing his step-five determination on flawed vocational expert testimony. We agree on both counts. We therefore vacate and remand for further proceedings.

First, Gardner argues that substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s finding, at step two of the sequential evaluation process, that Gardner’s right ankle impairment was not severe. We agree. In concluding that the ankle impairment was non-severe, the ALJ referred to medical records showing that “flexion and extension x-rays ... revealed ... no instability’ and that “[fjurther imaging was ... of no value, as there was no neurological deficit.” A review of the records in question, however, leaves no doubt that the “flexion and extension x-rays” were x-rays of…