The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Jacqueline Chooljian United States Magistrate Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF REMAND
On August 4, 2010, plaintiff Kenne Haynes ("plaintiff") filed a Complaint seeking review of the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of plaintiff's application for benefits. The parties have consented to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the parties' cross motions for summary judgment, respectively ("Plaintiff's Motion") and ("Defendant's Motion"). The Court has taken both motions under submission without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15; August 11, 2010 Case Management Order ¶ 5.
Based on the record as a whole and the applicable law, the decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED AND REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order of Remand because the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") erred at step five of the sequential evaluation process and this Court cannot find such error to be harmless.
II. BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION
On March 13, 2007, plaintiff filed an application for Supplemental Security Income benefits. (Administrative Record ("AR") 115-17). Plaintiff asserted that she became disabled on July 3, 2003, due to headaches, neck pain, dizziness, and memory loss. (AR 147). The ALJ examined the medical record and heard testimony from a medical expert, a vocational expert, and plaintiff (who was represented by counsel) on April 22, 2009. (AR 16-31).
On September 25, 2009, the ALJ determined that plaintiff was not disabled through the date of the decision. (AR 9-15). Specifically, the ALJ found:
(1) plaintiff suffered from the following severe impairments: depressive disorder not otherwise specified ("NOS") and other reaction to physical symptoms (AR 11); (2) plaintiff's impairments, considered singly or in combination, did not meet or medically equal one of the listed impairments (AR 11); (3) plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity to perform a full range of work at all exertional levels with certain non-exertional limitations (AR 12); (4) plaintiff could not perform *fn1 her past relevant work (AR 13); and (5) there are numerous jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that plaintiff could perform (AR 14).
The Appeals Council denied plaintiff's application for review. (AR 1-5).
III. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
A. Sequential Evaluation Process
To qualify for disability benefits, a claimant must show that she is unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of a medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of at least twelve months. Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A)). The impairment must render the claimant incapable of performing the work she previously performed and incapable of performing any other substantial gainful employment that exists in the national economy. Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A)). In assessing whether a claimant is disabled, an ALJ is to follow a five-step sequential evaluation process:
(1) Is the claimant presently engaged in substantial gainful activity? If so, the claimant is not disabled. ...