Trotter

MEMORANDUM **

We consider whether the Social Security Administration’s administrative law judge (“ALJ”) properly denied April Trotter’s application for Supplemental Security Income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. We review de novo the district court’s decision to affirm the ALJ and may reverse if we find that the “disability determination ... contains legal error or is not supported by substantial evidence.” Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 630 (9th Cir.2007). We reverse and remand for further proceedings. 1

Trotter contends that the ALJ wrongly discredited Trotter’s testimony and the reports of two of her treating doctors, general practitioner Dr. Lang and psychiatrist Dr. Karim. The ALJ was required to provide “specific, cogent” reasons that were “clear and convincing” to reject Trotter’s testimony. Morgan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 169 F.3d 595, 599 (9th Cir.1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). Similarly, he was required to provide “specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record” to discredit the views of Drs. Lang and Karim, treating physicians whose opinions were contradicted by those of other doctors. Orn, 495 F.3d at 632…