
    Jessica BIXLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 13-35864.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted July 6, 2015.
    Filed July 21, 2015.
    D. James Tree, Tree Law Office, Yakima, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Pamela J. Derusha, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, Jeffrey Eric Staples, Social Security Administration Office of the General Counsel, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: KLEINFELD, NGUYEN, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Jessica Bixler appeals the district court’s affirmance of the denial of her application for Social Security Supplemental Security Income. We vacate and remand for further proceedings.

The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred in evaluating the vocational expert’s testimony. The ALJ discounted Bixler’s first hypothetical even though that hypothetical was based on evidence — Section I of a Mental Residual Functional Capacity Assessment (“MRFCA”), from an acceptable medical source — that the ALJ herself had previously credited. The ALJ’s stated reasons for rejecting Bixler’s first hypothetical to the vocational expert contradict the ALJ’s decision to credit Section I of the MRFCA.

Because the vocational expert’s testimony was critical to the ALJ’s analysis at step five, see Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1100-02 (9th Cir.1999), we cannot say that the ALJ’s error in evaluating that testimony was harmless. We do not reach the question of whether there was substantial evidence on the record as a whole supporting the denial of benefits, because the ALJ’s errors in analysis require further proceedings. We therefore vacate the district court’s judgment and remand to the district court with instructions to remand this case to the agency for further proceedings.

We need not reach Bixler’s other arguments. Costs on appeal are awarded to Bixler.

VACATED and REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     