Morris

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiff-Appellant Thomas Morris appeals the district court’s decision upholding the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration’s denial of benefits. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and “[w]e review the district court’s order affirming the ALJ’s denial of social security benefits de novo.” Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th Cir.2008). Because the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) failed to provide clear and convincing reasons for discrediting Morris’s testimony, we reverse and remand for an award of benefits.

The ALJ found Morris’s testimony “not wholly credible and somewhat inconsistent.” In general, “questions of credibility and resolution of conflicts in the testimony are functions solely for” the ALJ. Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 750 (9th Cir.2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, “[wjhile an ALJ may certainly find testimony not credible and disregard it ... we cannot affirm such a determination unless it is supported by specific findings and reasoning.” Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 884-85 (9th Cir.2006). “To determine whether a claimant’s testimony regarding subjective pain or symptoms is…