Hartman

MEMORANDUM **

Jeffrey C. Hartman appeals the district court’s order upholding the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision denying his application for Supplemental Security Income benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

The hypothetical posed to the Vocational Expert (“VE”) was legally inadequate. The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) found that Hartman’s ability to work is limited by a number of conditions, including a disorder of written expression, and *819 that those conditions in combination are severe. The ALJ was therefore required to, but did not, include in the hypothetical posed to the VE the limitation of a disorder of written expression. See Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 886 (9th Cir.2006) (holding that hypothetical to a VE based on an incomplete set of limitations is legally inadequate and the VE’s responses have no evidentiary value).

The ALJ was not, however, required to include in the hypothetical a limitation relating to Hartman’s personal hygiene because body habitus is not a factor in assessing residual functional capacity (“RFC”). See SSR…