¶1*530Ralph Wilborn, Ralph Wilborn & Etta L. Wilborn, P.C., Eugene, Oregon, for plaintiff-appellant.
¶2Richard H. Wetmore, Assistant Regional Counsel, Social Security Administration, Office of General Counsel, Seattle, Washington, for defendant-appellee.
¶3Before: HUG and FERGUSON, Circuit Judges, and SCHWARZER,… District Judge.
¶7We affirm the judgment entered by the district court essentially for reasons expressed in the district court’s well-written opinion, Atkins v. Shalala, 837 F.Supp. 318 (D.Or.1993). That opinion was rendered prior to our opinion in Johnson v. Shalala, 60 F.3d 1428 (9th Cir.1995). In Johnson, we held that the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, of the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOT”) provides classifications that are re-buttable by vocational experts. Id. at 1435-36. To the extent the district court’s opinion in this case indicates otherwise, see 837 F.Supp. at 324, that discussion is superceded by Johnson’s holding that the DOT classifications are rebuttable.
¶8The district court was correct in concluding that the findings of the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) were erroneous because the hypothetical question addressed to the vocational expert did not contain all the physical impairments suffered by the claimant. Embrey v. Bowen, 849 F.2d 418, 422-23 (9th Cir.1988).
¶9On remand, the ALJ’s findings should take into account the rebuttable presumption of the DOT classifications and all of the impairments of the claimant.