is necessary so that the court may properly exercise its responsibility under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to determine if the Secretary’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. It is incumbent upon the examiner to make specific findings — the court may not speculate as to his findings. Williams v. Celebrezze, 359 F.2d 950 (4th Cir.1966). “We think it is not too much to require that an administrative decision that a claimant is not eligible ... be supported by explicit findings of all facts that are essential to the conclusion of ineligibility.” Choratch v. Finch, 438 F.2d 342, 343 (3d Cir.1971). Baerga, 500 F.2d at 312-313 (alteration in original). This Court applies the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning in Lester to the instant case and rejects the discredit 08 (D.Mass.1998) (Freedman, J.) (<HOLDING>). The Rohrberg court discussed the importance
holding that government officials are provided with qualified immunity so long as their actions could have been reasonably thought consistent with the rights they are alleged to have violated holding that costs of daily transcripts during trial are not recoverable holding that evidence that  is consistent with acts of private violence  or that merely shows that a person has been the victim of criminal activity does not constitute evidence of persecution based on a statutorily protected ground holding without discussion of the verbalwritten distinction that plaintiffs oral complaints were protected activity holding that a determination of residual functional capacity must include a discussion of why reported daily activity restrictions are or are not reasonably consistent with the medical evidence  quoting avery 797 f2d at 29