of Bazile’s testimony of her daily living activities. See Lester, 81 F.3d at 834 (“In particular, no reasons were given for rejecting Lester’s testimony as to the ‘marked’ limitations on his activities of daily living.”). b. Daily Living Activities Given that Bazile’s testimony was the only evidence of this essential factor in determining disability, and the administrative law judge improperly rejected it, this Court concludes that the administrative law judge committed legal error by failing to give it due consideration as part of a determination of Bazile’s residual functional capacity. It is insufficient for the administrative law judge to consider “most” of the Avery factors. All six must be given consideration. See Aguiar v. Apfel, 99 F.Supp.2d 130, 137 (D.Mass.2000) (Tauro, J.) (<HOLDING>); see also Rohrberg v. Apfel, 26 F.Supp.2d 303,
holding premature a suit filed before final administrative determination of claimants administrative claim holding that a sentencing judge would commit a statutory error  if the judge failed to consider the applicable guidelines range  as well as the other factors listed in section 3553a holding remand required where consideration of impermissible factors affected length of sentence recognizing that a trial judge might properly consider spousal contributions where they have a significant impact on recognized statutory factors such as the parents standards of living or their relative financial means holding that consideration of most of avery factors is insufficient where administrative law judge failed to consider claimants daily living activities