The opinion of the court was delivered by: Marc L. Goldman United States Magistrate Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Olivia Huerta ("Plaintiff") seeks judicial review of the Commissioner's final decision denying her application for disability insurance benefits ("DIB") pursuant to Title II of the Social Security Act. For the reasons stated below, the Commissioner's decision is reversed, and this action is remanded for further proceedings.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiff was born on November 19, 1966. (Administrative Record ("AR") at 45). She has relevant work experience as a food server, bakery supervisor, checker, and office helper. (AR at 10).
Plaintiff protectively filed an application for DIB on June 23, 2006, alleging that she has been disabled since July 18, 2005, due to multiple cervical discopathies, multiple disc protrusions in the lumbar spine, depression, shoulder pain, knee pain, and anxiety. (AR at 10, 187). The Social Security Administration denied Plaintiff's application initially and on reconsideration. (AR at 76-79, 81-85).
An administrative hearing was held before Administrative Law Judge Lowell Fortune ("the ALJ") on August 6, 2008, and was continued on October 31, 2008, and January 30, 2009. (AR at 18-72). Plaintiff, who was represented by counsel, testified at the hearings. (AR at 21-38, 45-53, 57-61). A vocational expert also testified at the hearings. (AR at 38-41, 65-70). The ALJ issued a decision on June 26, 2009, denying Plaintiff's application. (AR at 10-17). The ALJ found that Plaintiff:
(1) has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since her alleged onset date (step 1); (2) suffers from severe impairments including disorder of the cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine, left shoulder disorder, bilateral knee disorder, depressive disorder and adjustment disorder (step 2); (3) does not have any impairments that meet or equal the criteria of a listed impairment (step 3); (4) has a residual functional capacity ("RFC") to perform a limited range of medium work;*fn1 and (5) is able to perform her past relevant work as a food server,checker, and office helper (step 4). (AR at 14-17). The Appeals Council denied review on May 26, 2010. (AR at 1-3).
Plaintiff commenced this action for judicial review on July 27, 2010. The parties filed a Joint Stipulation identifying the disputed facts and legal issues on February 10, 2011. Plaintiff contends that the ALJ failed to give proper consideration to the medical evidence and her subjective symptom testimony. Plaintiff seeks remand for further administrative proceedings. (Joint Stipulation at 19-20). The Commissioner requests that the ALJ's decision be affirmed. (Joint Stipulation at 20). The Joint Stipulation has been taken under submission without oral argument.
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 from legal error and are supported by substantial evidence based on the record as a whole. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971); Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 746 (9th Cir. 2007). Substantial evidence means such evidence as a reasonable person might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Richardson, 402 U.S. at 401; Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1035 (9th Cir. 2007). It is more than a scintilla, but less than a preponderance. Lingenfelter, 504 F.3d at 1035 (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 reasonably support either affirming or reversing," the reviewing court "may not substitute its judgment" for that of the Commissioner. Id. at 720-721.
A. Examining Physician's Opinion
Plaintiff contends that the ALJ improperly rejected the work-related limitations identified by orthopedic surgeon Thomas W. Jackson, M.D. (AR at 504-22).
While working at a grocery store, Plaintiff suffered injuries to her left shoulder, low back, mid-back, and neck. (AR at 505). In February 2007, Dr. Jackson was retained in Plaintiff's workers' compensation case as an Agreed Medical Examiner. (AR at 504-22). Dr. Jackson diagnosed Plaintiff with disc bulges in the cervical spine, left shoulder rotator cuff tendinitis, disc protrusion in the thoracic spine, degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine, facet spondylosis associated with bilateral lower extremity radiculitis, and mild to moderate exogenous obesity. (AR at 516). Based on these conditions, Dr. Jackson identified a number of work restrictions. (AR at 518). With respect to the use of the left arm at or above shoulder level, Dr. Jackson found that Plaintiff was precluded from engaging in "repetitive movements," "heavy lifting," "heavy pushing," and "heavy pulling." ...