reasons for rejecting Medhi’s testimony. See Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 834 (9th Cir.1995). First, because Medhi provided evidence of an underlying impairment, she did not need to support the severity of her pain with additional evidence. See Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 347-48 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc). Second, the ALJ’s finding that Medhi drove a car and cared for her two children is unsupported in the record. Further, her testimony that she rarely drove and required help with childcare is not inconsistent with Medhi’s subjective complaints of pain. See Vertigan v. Halter, 260 F.3d 1044, 1050 (9th Cir.2001). Considering the record as a whole, the ALJ’s reasons for rejecting Medhi’s pain testimony are not supported by substantial evidence. See Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1098 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we remand for further
holding that the district courts decision to dismiss will be affirmed unless it has abused its discretion holding that decision cannot be ignored simply because review is being sought holding that the commissioners decision cannot be affirmed simply by isolating a specific quantum of supporting evidence holding that the decision of the bia will not be affirmed by this court unless the reasons for such a finding are made clear holding that judgment may be affirmed on any ground supported by the record