MEMORANDUM ***

John M. Jimerson appeals the district court’s summary judgment for the Com *210 missioner in Jimerson’s action seeking review of the denial of his application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a district court’s order upholding the Commissioner’s denial of benefits, and we review for substantial evidence and legal error the Commissioner’s decision. Sandgathe v. Chater, 108 F.3d 978, 980 (9th Cir.1997) (per curiam). We reverse and remand.

There is an objective medical basis for Jimerson’s pain testimony, and the administrative law judge’s (ALJ’s) reasons for discrediting the extent of Jimerson’s pain are not “clear and convincing.” See Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 834 (9th Cir.1995).

Additionally, the ALJ discounted the testimony of Jimerson’s girlfriend without providing any reasons. That was error. See Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1288-89 . Indeed, the ALJ acknowledged that the witness, *211 “to some extent, corroborated” Jimerson’s testimony about the severity of his symptoms.

Finally, the hypothetical presented to the vocational expert to determine Jimerson’s residual functional capacity was flawed because it did not include disabling pain or its effects on sleep and concentration. See Light v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 119 F.3d 789 , 793 (9th Cir.1997). Because the ALJ’s denial of benefits is based on a vocational expert’s opinion derived from an incomplete hypothetical, the denial of benefits is not supported by substantial evidence. See Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 956 (9th Cir.2002).

There are no unresolved issues in the record, and it is clear that the ALJ would be required to award benefits if Jimerson’s excess pain testimony were credited. The ALJ already found that Jimerson was not presently engaged in a substantial gainful activity, that his shoulder disability is severe, that his medically documented disorders reasonably could be expected to produce the symptoms alleged, and that Jimerson is not able to perform past work; the only question in dispute is residual functional capacity, which in turn depends on the extent of Jimerson’s pain. Therefore, remand for further proceedings is unnecessary. Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.Sd 715, 728-30 (9th Cir.1998). We reverse the judgment of the district court and remand with instructions to remand to the ALJ for an award of benefits.

REVERSED and REMANDED for award of benefits.

This panel unanimously finds this case suit *210 able for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

. The Commissioner additionally argues that objective medical evidence was lacking and that Jimerson's complaints were inconsistent with medical evidence. The ALJ found, however, based on the medical evidence, that "[tjhere are medically documented disorders that could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms alleged.” The disorders included a left hemi-colectomy for gastrointestinal bleeding due to diverticulosis (nonsevere); a history of a myocardial infarction (nonsevere); and osteoarthritis and various degenerative and other changes in both shoulders, which in combination are "severe.”