The opinion of the court was delivered by: Marc L. Goldman United States Magistrate Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Lonnie Hargrove seeks judicial review of the Commissioner's denial of his application for Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") benefits under the Social Security Act. For the reasons stated below, the decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
I. Factual and Procedural History
Plaintiff was born on December 9, 1961. (Administrative Record ("AR") 19, 58.) He has a high school education with no other trade or vocational training. (AR 19, 79.) Plaintiff was employed for twelve years as a bakery clerk. (AR 17, 73-74.)
Plaintiff filed an application for benefits on June 29, 2007, alleging that he had been disabled since January 18, 2007 due to bipolar disorder, high blood pressure, diabetes and manic depression. (AR 13, 73.) Plaintiff's application was denied initially on December 7, 2007. (AR 13, 44-48.) An administrative hearing was held on May 7, 2009, before Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") Dale A. Garwal at which Plaintiff, represented by counsel, testified. (AR 27-37.)
On June 19, 2009, ALJ Garwal denied Plaintiff's application for benefits. (AR 13-19.) The ALJ found that Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity during the time period at issue. (AR 15.) The ALJ further found that the medical evidence established that Plaintiff suffered from the following severe impairments: diabetes, a bipolar disorder and depression. (Id.) However, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff's impairments did not meet, or were not medically equal to, one of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R., Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. (Id.) In evaluating Plaintiff's residual functional capacity ("RFC"), the ALJ found as follows: "medium work with restrictions to doing simple routine work tasks and limited public contact do not allow the claimant to perform the full range of unskilled occupations at the medium level; however, he could perform many jobs existing in the national economy at the unskilled sedentary and light levels (section 203.00 and 20 CFR 416.967(c). Unskilled work requires little judgment and can be learned in a short period of time and is primarily work with things, not work around people (20 CFR 416.968(a))." (AR 19.)
The ALJ determined that Plaintiff was unable to perform his past relevant work as a bakery clerk. (AR 18-19.) However, relying on the Medical-Vocational Guidelines, the ALJ found that there were jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff could perform (20 C.F.R. 416.960(c), 416.966). (AR 19.) The ALJ concluded that Plaintiff was therefore not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(f). (Id.)
On September 16, 2009, the Appeals Council denied review (AR 1-4) and Plaintiff timely commenced this action for judicial review. On April 26, 2010, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation ("Joint Stp.") of disputed facts and issues. Plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred by relying on the Medical-Vocational Guidelines in concluding that there were a significant number of jobs in the national economy that Plaintiff could perform despite finding that Plaintiff was limited in his ability to deal with co-workers, supervisors and the general public. (Joint Stp. 4.) Plaintiff seeks a reversal of the Commissioner's denial of his application and remand for a new administrative hearing. (Joint Stp. 11.) The Commissioner requests that the ALJ's decision be affirmed. (Id.)
After reviewing the parties' respective contentions and the record as a whole, the Court finds Plaintiff's contention regarding the ALJ's error in relying on the Medical-Vocational Guidelines to be meritorious and remands this matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), a district court may review the Social Security Commissioner's decision to deny benefits. The Court must uphold the Social Security Administration's disability determination unless it is not supported by substantial evidence or is based on legal error.
Ryan v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 528 F.3d 1194, 1198 (9th Cir. 2008)(citing Stout v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 454 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir. 2006)). Substantial evidence means more than a scintilla, but less than a preponderance; it is evidence that "a reasonable person might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1035 (9th Cir. 2007)(citing Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 882 (9th Cir. 2006)). To determine whether substantial evidence supports a finding, the reviewing 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." Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 720 (9th Cir. 1996). "If the evidence can support either affirming or reversing the ALJ's conclusion," the reviewing court "may not substitute [its] judgment for that of the ALJ." Robbins, 466 F.3d at 882.
Plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred by neglecting to obtain vocational expert testimony on the issue of whether there existed work in the national economy that Plaintiff could perform and instead relying solely on the ...