Macri

dissenting.

I dissent because the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) committed two legal errors that require remand.

I

Macri contends that the ALJ’s findings rejecting his subjective pain testimony failed to meet the standard set forth in Dodrill v. Shalala, 12 F.3d 915 (9th Cir.1993). In Dod-rill, we stated that “[i]f there is medical evidence establishing an objective basis for some degree of pain and related symptoms, and no evidence affirmatively suggesting that the claimant was malingering, the Secretary’s reason for rejecting the claimant’s testimony must be ‘clear and convincing,’ and supported by specific findings.” Id. at 918 (quoting Swenson v. Sullivan, 876 F.2d 683, 687 (9th Cir.1989)). Further, “[fit’s not sufficient for the ALJ to make only general findings; he must state which pain testimony is not credible and what evidence suggests the complaints are not credible.” Id.

Here the ALJ rejected Macri’s subjective pain complaints without considering significant probative evidence and by relying on other evidence that was not probative. First, the ALJ considered only Maori’s pain testimony given at the hearing and disregarded without comment significant probative…

Opinion by Judge SNEED; Dissent by Judge NORRIS.

ORDER

The Memorandum disposition filed July 9, 1996, is redesignated as an authored Opinion by Judge Sneed.

OPINION

Giuseppe Macri appeals the district court’s order and judgment affirming the Commis *543 sioner’s decision to deny him disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act (“the Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 401 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

I.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review de novo the district court’s order upholding the Commissioner’s denial of benefits. Floten v. Secretary of Health & Human Serv., 44 F.3d 1453, 1457 (9th Cir.1995). We must affirm the denial of disability benefits if it is supported by substantial evidence and the Commissioner applied the correct legal standards. Id. “Substantial evidence is relevant evidence which, considering the record as a whole, a reasonable person might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. We may not substitute our judgment for that of the Commissioner. Id.

II.

MAORI’S ARGUMENTS

Macri makes numerous arguments in support of his contention that the district court erred in affirming the Commissioner’s denial of disability…