); See also Pulliam v. Berryhill, 728 Fed. App'x 694, 697 (9th Cir. 2018) (finding an ALJ erred in discounting a claimant's testimony because the ALJ failed to "point to specific facts in the record that support [the ALJ's] findings that "[claimant] did not receive the type of treatment 'one would expect for a totally disabled individual,' [claimant's] descriptions of symptoms were inconsistent, unpersuasive, vague, and general, [claimaint's] work history indicates that she can work despite her impairments, and [claimant] is able to engage in daily activities and go on occasional trips[.]"); Bergin v. Berryhill, No. CV-16-2762-PHX-DGC, 2017 WL 3215555, at *5 (D. Ariz. July 28, 2017) (finding that an "ALJ's conclusion that Plaintiff's testimony is not consistent with the medical evidence of record is erroneous" when "the ALJ's decision failed to make a comparison between Plaintiff's testimony and the medical evidence the decision summarized" and that "[t]his failure alone shows that the ALJ did not satisfy her burden of providing clear and convincing reasons supported by substantial evidence for rejecting Plaintiff's symptom testimony."). To be sure, the ALJ provides a thorough detailing of Plaintiff's medical history.

See Vasquez, 572 F.3d at 591 (finding the ALJ erred where they provided "no level of comparable analysis from which we could evaluate the sufficiency of the credibility determination."); See also Pulliam v. Berryhill, 728 Fed. App'x 694, 697 (9th Cir. 2018) (finding an ALJ erred in discounting a claimant's testimony because the ALJ failed to "point to specific facts in the record that support [the ALJ's] findings that "[claimant] did not receive the type of treatment 'one would expect for a totally disabled individual,' [claimant's] descriptions of symptoms were inconsistent, unpersuasive, vague, and general, [claimaint's] work history indicates that she can work despite her impairments, and [claimant] is able to engage in daily activities and go on occasional trips[.]"); Bergin v. Berryhill, No. CV-16-2762-PHX-DGC, 2017 WL 3215555, at *5 (D. Ariz. July 28, 2017) (finding that an "ALJ's conclusion that Plaintiff's testimony is not consistent with the medical evidence of record is erroneous" when "the ALJ's decision failed to make a comparison between Plaintiff's testimony and the medical evidence the decision summarized" and that "[t]his failure alone shows that the ALJ did not satisfy her burden of providing clear and convincing reasons supported by substantial evidence for rejecting Plaintiff's symptom testimony."). Here the ALJ provided no reasoning for how Plaintiff's testimony was inconsistent with the medical record.