The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Oswald Parada United States Magistrate Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION; ORDER
The Court*fn1 now rules as follows with respect to the disputed issues listed in the Joint Stipulation ("JS").*fn2
As reflected in the Joint Stipulation, the disputed issues which Plaintiff raises as the grounds for reversal and/or remand are as follows:
1. Whether the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") properly rejected Plaintiff's credibility;
2. Whether the ALJ properly rejected the uncontroverted opinion of Plaintiff's treating physician;
3. Whether the ALJ erred by failing to obtain the testimony of a medical expert;
4. Whether the ALJ failed to consider Plaintiff's medically documented impairments; and
5. Whether the ALJ's residual functional capacity ("RFC") assessment was based on substantial evidence.
Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), this Court reviews the Commissioner's decision to determine whether the Commissioner's findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether the proper legal standards were applied. DeLorme v. Sullivan, 924 F.2d 841, 846 (9th Cir. 1991). Substantial evidence means "more than a mere scintilla" but less than a preponderance. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401, 91 S.Ct. 1420, 28 L.Ed. 2d 842 (1971); Desrosiers v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 846 F.2d 573, 575-76 (9th Cir. 1988). Substantial evidence is "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Richardson, 402 U.S. at 401 (citation omitted). The Court must review the record as a whole and consider adverse as well as supporting evidence. Green v. Heckler, 803 F.2d 528, 529-30 (9th Cir. 1986).
Where evidence is susceptible of more than one rational interpretation, the Commissioner's decision must be upheld. Gallant v. Heckler, 753 F.2d 1450, 1452 (9th Cir. 1984).
A. The ALJ Properly Considered Plaintiff's Subjective Complaints and Properly Assessed Plaintiff's Credibility
Plaintiff contends that the ALJ failed to provide specific and legitimate reasons for rejecting Plaintiff's subjective complaints of pain. (JS at 6-9.) Plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to identify which statements made by Plaintiff to her treating physician were inconsistent. (Id. at 8.) Plaintiff also claims that the ALJ failed to consider the factors in Social Security Ruling ("SSR") 96-7p*fn3 in rejecting her subjective symptoms. (Id.) The Court disagrees.
As a preliminary matter, the relevant period for Plaintiff's claim for disability insurance benefits is January 27, 1998, the day following the Commissioner's final decision regarding her prior claim, through June 30, 2002, her date last insured ("DLI"). (Administrative Record ("AR") at 24-25, 367.) Plaintiff does not dispute this period as the relevant time period. For purposes of receiving disability insurance benefits, Plaintiff must show a recent connection to the workforce to maintain insured status. See 42 U.S.C. § 423(c); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.130. Plaintiff also "has the burden of proving that he became disabled prior to the expiration of his disability insured status." See Macri v. Chater, 93 F.3d 540, 543 (9th Cir. 1996). Here, Plaintiff has the burden of proving that she became disabled prior to her DLI of June 30, 2002. Id.
An ALJ's assessment of pain severity and claimant credibility is entitled to "great weight." Weetman v. Sullivan, 877 F.2d 20, 22 (9th Cir. 1989); Nyman v. Heckler, 779 F.2d 528, 531 (9th Cir. 1986). When, as here, an ALJ's disbelief of a claimant's testimony is a critical factor in a decision to deny benefits, the ALJ must make explicit credibility findings. Rashad v. Sullivan, 903 F.2d 1229, 1231 (9th Cir. 1990); Lewin v. Schweiker, 654 F.2d 631, 635 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Albalos v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 871, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (an implicit finding that claimant was not credible is insufficient).
Under the "Cotton test," where the claimant has produced objective medical evidence of an impairment which could reasonably be expected to produce some degree of pain and/or other symptoms, and the record is devoid of any affirmative evidence of malingering, the ALJ may reject the claimant's testimony regarding the severity of the claimant's pain and/or other symptoms only if the ALJ makes specific findings stating clear and convincing reasons for doing so. See Cotton v. Bowen, 799 F.2d 1403, 1407 (9th Cir. 1986); see also Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1281 (9th Cir. 1996); Dodrill v. Shalala, 12 F.3d 915, 918 (9th Cir. 1993); Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 343 (9th Cir. 1991).
To determine whether a claimant's testimony regarding the severity of his symptoms is credible, the ALJ may consider, inter alia, the following evidence: (1) ordinary techniques of credibility evaluation, such as the claimant's reputation for lying, prior inconsistent statements concerning the symptoms, and other testimony by the claimant that appears less than candid; (2) unexplained or inadequately explained failure to seek treatment or to follow a prescribed course of treatment; (3) the claimant's daily activities; and (4) testimony from physicians and third parties concerning the ...