Circuit “emphasize[d] ... that a finding of severity is not required to satisfy the more than slight or minimal effect standard.” Fanning, 827 F.2d at 633 n. 3 (citing Edwards, 755 F.2d at 1515) (stating that a “significant” work-related limitation of function involves something more than “minimal” but less than “severe”). If the claimant has an additional physical or mental impairment “which was itself severe,” that impairmen p-three finding that plaintiff did not meet or equal a listed impairment was not based on substantial evidence and is not free of legal error. Remedy The choice whether to reverse and remand for further administrative proceedings, or to reverse and simply award benefits, is within the discretion of the court. See Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1038, 121 S.Ct. 628,
recognizing that the decision of whether to give a jury instruction is reviewed for abuse of discretion holding that decision to sentence juvenile as an adult subject to abuse of discretion review holding that the district courts decision whether to remand for further proceedings or payment of benefits is discretionary and is subject to review for abuse of discretion holding that a district courts decision on whether to hold a daubert hearing is reviewed only for abuse of discretion holding a trial courts decision involving withdrawal or discharge of counsel is subject to review for abuse of discretion