Matlock

dissenting.

I respectfully dissent from the decision to reverse the district court’s judgment and remand the case for further proceedings.

Where there is no evidence of malingering, the ALJ can reject the claimant’s testimony regarding the severity of his symptoms only for “specific, clear and convincing reasons.” Smolen v. Chafer, 80 F.3d 1273 , 1281 (9th Cir.1996). In this regard, general findings by the ALJ are insufficient. Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 834 (9th Cir.1995). “[RJather, the ALJ must identify what testimony is not credible and what evidence undermines the claimant’s complaints.” Id. “Questions of credibility and resolutions of conflicts in the testimony are functions solely of the [Commissioner].” Morgan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 169 F.3d 595, 599 (9th Cir.1999). In weighing a claimant’s credibility, the ALJ can consider ordinary techniques for credibility evaluation, including “inconsistencies either in his testimony or between his testimony and his conduct.” Light v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 119 F.3d 789 , 792 (9th Cir.1997).

At his second administrative hearing, Matlock presented that he suffered from schizophrenia so severe that he was completely…

MEMORANDUM ***

Paul Matlock (“Matlock”) appeals the judgment of the district court affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s (“Commissioner”) denial of his application for disability benefits and supplemental security income. At step three of the evaluation process, 1 the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) found that Matlock was not credible because of purported inconsistencies in his testimony. As a result, the ALJ discounted not only Matlock’s testimony regarding the severity of his symptoms and the restrictions on his daily activities, but also the testimony of Matlock’s wife and the opinion of his treating physician. In light of this determination, the ALJ concluded that Matlock did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or equaled a listed impairment, and further found, at step four, that Mat- *210 lock was able to perform his past relevant work.

On appeal, Matlock contends that the ALJ’s credibility determination was not supported by substantial evidence and therefore the ALJ erred in disregarding his testimony, his wife’s testimony, and the opinion of his treating physician. We agree. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further…