
    Michael J. THOMPSON, Gordon Thompson, as executor of the Estate of Michael J. Thompson, deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Appellee.
    No. 10-1245-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    March 25, 2011.
    
      Carolyn Kubitschek, Lansner Kubitschek Schaffer, New York, NY. (Irwin M. Portnoy, Irwin M. Portnoy and Associates, P.C., New Windsor, N Y, on the brief), for Appellant.
    Christopher J. Brackett, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, (Richard S. Hartunian, United States Attorney for the Northern District of New York, Stephen P. Conte, Regional Chief Counsel — Region II, Office of the General Counsel, Social Security Administration, New York, N.Y., on the brief), for Appellee.
    Present: RALPH K. WINTER, ROSEMARY S. POOLER, and PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      . Michael J. Astrue, is automatically substituted as the respondent in this case pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2).
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Thompson appeals from the February 9, 2010, 2010 WL 502868, memorandum-decision and order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Sharpe, J.) affirming the May 9, 2006 decision of the Commissioner for Social Security denying Michael Thompson’s claim for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and specification of issues for review.

Thompson alleges he became disabled on September 29, 1997 as the result of a car accident that left him with two broken legs. While finding that Thompson suffered from chronic heart failure, a variety of mental impairments and lingering orthopedic troubles, the Administrative Law Judge determined Thompson could perform light work and denied him disability benefits. We find that the ALJ committed error by failing to consider the combined effect of Thompson’s impairments in determining his disability claim. Where, as here, the claimant has more than one impairment, the ALJ must account for the combined effect of all impairments on a claimant’s ability to work, regardless of whether each impairment is severe. Dixon v. Shalala, 54 F.3d 1019, 1031 (2d Cir. 1995). The ALJ must “consider the combined effect of all of [the claimant’s] impairments without regard to whether any such impairment, if considered separately, would be of sufficient severity.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1523, 416.923. Here, the ALJ examined Thompson’s mental and physical impairments separately, and failed to evaluate all of the impairments together. This was erroneous as a matter of law.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court hereby is VACATED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.  