The opinion of the court was delivered by: Carla M. Woehrle United States Magistrate Judge
The parties have consented, under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge. Plaintiff seeks review of the denial of disability benefits. The court finds that judgment should be granted in favor of defendant, affirming the Commissioner's decision.
Plaintiff Marc Levesque was born on September 3, 1982, and was twenty-five years old at the time of his administrative hearing. [Administrative Record ("AR") 19, 96.] He has a high school education and past relevant work experience as a pizza delivery person and housekeeper. [AR 16, 120.] Plaintiff alleges disability on the basis of mental illness, psychosis, depression, leg pain, paranoia and hallucinations. [AR 115.]
II. PROCEEDINGS IN THIS COURT
Plaintiff's complaint was lodged on July 22, 2008, and filed on August 5, 2008. On February 2, 2009, defendant filed an answer and plaintiff's Administrative Record ("AR"). On July 15, 2009, the parties filed their Joint Stipulation ("JS") identifying matters not in dispute, issues in dispute, the positions of the parties, and the relief sought by each party. This matter has been taken under submission without oral argument.
III. PRIOR ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
Plaintiff applied for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits ("DIB") and supplemental security income ("SSI") on September 8, 2005, alleging disability since November 1, 2004. [AR 8.] After the applications were denied initially and on reconsideration, plaintiff requested an administrative hearing, which was held on November 28, 2007, before Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") Jay E. Levine. [AR 19.] Plaintiff appeared with counsel, and testimony was taken from Plaintiff, third party witness Donna Warren, and vocational expert David Rinehart. [AR 19.] The ALJ denied benefits in a decision issued on January 11, 2008. [AR 8-18.] When the Appeals Council denied review on June 21, 2008, the ALJ's decision became the Commissioner's final decision. [AR 1-3.]
Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), a district court may review the Commissioner's decision to deny benefits. The Commissioner's (or ALJ's) findings and decision should be upheld if they are free of legal error and supported by substantial evidence. However, if the court determines that a finding is based on legal error or is not supported by substantial evidence in the record, the court may reject the finding and set aside the decision to deny benefits. See Aukland v. Massanari, 257 F.3d 1033, 1035 (9th Cir. 2001); Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 2001); Osenbrock v. Apfel, 240 F.3d 1157, 1162 (9th Cir. 2001); Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir. 1999); Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 720 (9th Cir. 1998); Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996); Moncada v. Chater, 60 F.3d 521, 523 (9th Cir. 1995)(per curiam). "Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla, but less than a
preponderance." Reddick, 157 F.3d at 720. It is "relevant evidence which a reasonable person might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Id. To determine whether substantial evidence supports a finding, a court must review the administrative record as a whole, "weighing both the evidence that supports and the evidence that detracts from the Commissioner's conclusion." Id. "If the evidence can reasonably support either affirming or reversing," the reviewing court "may not substitute its judgment" for that of the Commissioner. Reddick, 157 F.3d at 720-721; see also Osenbrock, 240 F.3d at 1162.
A. THE FIVE-STEP EVALUATION
To be eligible for disability benefits a claimant must demonstrate a medically determinable impairment which prevents the claimant from engaging in substantial gainful activity and which is expected to result in death or to last for a continuous period of at least twelve months. Tackett, ...