MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

JAY C. GANDHI, Magistrate Judge.

Carolyn F. Jones ("Plaintiff") challenges the Social Security Commissioner ("Commissioner")'s decision denying her application for disability benefits. Specifically, Plaintiff contends that the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") improperly discounted her subjective complaints of disabling pain. (See Joint Stipulation ("Joint Stip.") at 4, 11-14.) The Court agrees with Plaintiff for the reasons discussed below.

A. The ALJ Improperly Assessed Plaintiff's Subjective Complaints

As a rule, an ALJ may reject a claimant's credibility "only upon (1) finding evidence of malingering, or (2) expressing clear and convincing reasons for doing so." Benton v. Barnhart, 331 F.3d 1030, 1040 (9th Cir. 2003). "General findings are insufficient; rather, the ALJ must identify what testimony is not credible and what evidence undermines the claimant's complaints." Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487, 493 (9th Cir. 2015) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

Here, the ALJ improperly discounted Plaintiff's credibility for two reasons.

First, the ALJ erred by relying on Plaintiff's ability to do "light chores such as washing dishes, and washing small loads of her own clothes," without making findings as to the transferability of those activities to the workplace. (Administrative Record ("AR") at 34); see Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 630 (9th Cir. 2007) (ALJ must make "specific findings related to [the daily] activities and their transferability to conclude that a claimant's daily activities warrant an adverse credibility determination"); Vertigan v. Halter, 260 F.3d 1044, 1049-50 (9th Cir. 2001) (the mere fact that claimant "carried on certain daily activities, such as grocery shopping, driving a car, or limited walking or exercise, does not in any way detract" from credibility as to overall disability); Oldham v. Astrue, 2010 WL 2850770, at *9 (C.D. Cal. July 19, 2010) ("The fact that [claimant] may be able to wash a few dishes, wipe down a bathroom, or do a load of laundry does not constitute convincing evidence that [claimant] could handle the more rigorous demands of the workplace.")

Second, the ALJ erred by relying on Plaintiff's "substantial gainful activity until November 2013" because (1) the ALJ declined to reach that issue earlier in the decision2; and (2) regardless, it does not explain the veracity of Plaintiff's symptoms for the time period after Plaintiff stopped working. (AR at 32, 34-35); see Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1038 (9th Cir.2007) (mere "fact that a claimant tried to work for a short period of time and, because of his impairments, failed," does not mean "that he did not then experience pain and limitations severe enough to preclude him from maintaining substantial gainful employment"); Riggs v. Colvin, 2015 WL 1476387, at *15 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2015) ("The ALJ may not use [claimant]'s part-time work . . . as the sole basis for finding [claimant]'s testimony not credible[.]")3

Thus, the ALJ improperly assessed Plaintiff's credibility.4

B. Remand is Warranted

With error established, this Court has discretion to remand or reverse and award benefits. McAllister v. Sullivan, 888 F.2d 599, 603 (9th Cir. 1989). Where no useful purpose would be served by further proceedings, or where the record has been fully developed, it is appropriate to direct an immediate award of benefits. Benecke v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 587, 595-96 (9th Cir. 2004). But where outstanding issues must be resolved before a determination can be made, or where the record does not make clear that proper evaluation of the evidence would require a disability finding, remand is appropriate. Id. at 594.

The ALJ shall conduct another hearing, reconsider Plaintiff's subjective complaints and the resulting functional limitations, and either credit Plaintiff's testimony or provide clear and convincing reasons, supported by substantial evidence, for rejecting them. See Benton, 331 F.3d at 1040. Further, if the ALJ rejects Plaintiff's allegations, he must specifically identify what testimony is not credible, and what evidence undermines Plaintiff's complaints. See Brown-Hunter, 806 F.3d at 493.

Finally, the Court is mindful that "the touchstone for an award of benefits is the existence of a disability, not the agency's legal error." Id. at 495. Because it is unclear, on this record, whether Plaintiff is in fact disabled, remand here is on an "open record." Id.; Burrell v. Colvin, 775 F.3d 1133, 1141-42 (9th Cir. 2014). The parties may freely take up any issue raised in the Joint Stipulation, and any other issues relevant to resolving Plaintiff's claim of disability, before the ALJ. Either party may address those points in the remanded, open proceeding.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT judgment shall be entered REVERSING the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits and REMANDING the matter for further administrative action consistent with this decision.