As such, in the absence of any other legitimate reason, the ALJ should have credited Dr. Park's opinion in formulating Plaintiff's RFC, rather than giving it “no weight.” See Johnson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. CV-18-00012-PHX-JJT, 2019 WL 1375688, *3 (D. Ariz. Mar. 27, 2019).

(Doc. 15 at 19.) She relies on Thomas v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. CV-18-04230-PHX-JZB, 2020 WL 1000023, at *7 (D. Ariz. Mar. 2, 2020), and Johnson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. CV-18-00012-PHX-JJT, 2019 WL 1375688, at *2 (D. Ariz. Mar. 27, 2019). (Doc. 15 at 19.)

But these findings are not mutually exclusive with debilitating pain...” (record citation omitted)); Johnson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. CV-18-00012-PHX-JJT, 2019 WL 1375688, at *2 (D. Ariz. Mar. 27, 2019) (“The ALJ cites evidence that Plaintiff demonstrated normal range of motion, muscle strength, and gait, but these evaluations are not the same as the treating physicians' assessments of severe chronic pain, which is supported by substantial evidence in the record by way of extensive treatment notes.”);

See Embrey v. Bowen, 849 F.2d 418, 421-22 (9th Cir. 1988) ("The ALJ must do more than offer his conclusions. He must set forth his own interpretations and explain why they, rather than the doctors', are correct."); see also Rawa v. Colvin, 672 F. App'x 664, 667 (9th Cir. 2016) (finding the ALJ erred in rejecting the claimant's testimony regarding pain based on a lack of muscle atrophy and stating "[i]t is beyond the scope of the ALJ's authority to offer such a medical opinion based solely on his own personal speculation."); Johnson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 2019 WL 1375688, at *2 (D. Ariz. Mar. 27, 2019) ("The ALJ cites evidence that Plaintiff demonstrated normal range of motion, muscle strength, and gait, but these evaluations are not the same as the treating physician's assessments of severe chronic pain, which is supported by substantial evidence in the record by way of extensive treatment notes."); Curtis v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. CV-18-00649-DGC, 2018 WL 5418486, at *7 (D. Ariz. Dec. 6, 2018) ("But the ALJ fails to explain why the normal findings do not support Plaintiff's general pain testimony or why the normal findings should be given more weight than the abnormal findings."). Because the ALJ failed to explain how her reasoning is supported by evidence in the record, it cannot serve as specific and legitimate reasoning to reject Dr. Hammett's opinion.