Wenzel

*25 MEMORANDUM *

Plaintiff Tami Wenzel appeals from the denial of Social Security disability benefits.We review de novo the district court’s order upholding the decision to deny benefits. Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 720 (9th Cir.1998). We must affirm the Commissioner’s decision if it is supported by substantial evidence. Id. We hold that this decision was not supported by substantial evidence, however, and reverse for an award of benefits.

The administrative law judge (“ALJ”) erred in rejecting the opinion of Dr. Michiel, an examining physician, in favor of the opinion of Dr. Murillo, a nonexamining physician, concerning Plaintiffs mental health. The opinion of an examining physician should receive more weight than that of a nonexamining physician. Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1040-41 (9th Cir.1995). The “opinion of a nonexamining physician cannot by itself constitute substantial evidence that justifies the rejection of the opinion of ... an examining physician.” Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 831 (9th Cir.1995). The ALJ did not sufficiently explain the decision to reject Dr. Michiel’s opinion, which contained clinical findings to support his conclusion that Plaintiffs…