Raymond

MEMORANDUM **

Dawn Raymond appeals the decision of the district court affirming the Social Security Commissioner’s decision to deny her claim for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income benefits. Raymond contends that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) improperly determined her residual function *597 al capacity and improperly relied on the Medical-Vocational Guidelines to determine whether she is capable of performing work in the national economy. We hold that the ALJ’s findings regarding Raymond’s residual functional capacity are not supported by substantial evidence and we remand for testimony of a vocational expert at step five of the sequential evaluation process.

We review the district court’s decision de novo. Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, 458 (9th Cir.2001). We must affirm if the ALJ applied the proper legal standard and the factual findings are supported by substantial evidence. Id. at 458-59 . Substantial evidence is “more than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance; it is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Sandgathe v. Chater, 108 F.3d 978, 980 (9th Cir.1997)…