The opinion of the court was delivered by: Alicia G. Rosenberg United States Magistrate Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Jennifer Roberson ("Roberson") filed a Complaint on November 4, 2009. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties filed Consents to proceed before Magistrate Judge Rosenberg on December 1 and 23, 2009. (Dkt. Nos. 8, 10.) On July 13, 2010, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation ("JS") that addressed the disputed issues. The Court has taken the matter under submission without oral argument.
Having reviewed the entire file, the Court affirms the decision of the Commissioner.
On February 27, 2007, Roberson filed an application for supplemental security income based on disability. Administrative Record ("AR") 9.*fn1 She alleged a disability onset date of April 30, 2005. Id. The application was denied initially and on reconsideration. Id. Roberson requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"). AR 78. On October 30, 2008, an ALJ conducted a hearing at which Roberson, a medical expert, and a vocational expert ("VE") testified. AR 29-57. On May 11, 2009, the ALJ issued a decision denying benefits. AR 9-16. On June 3, 2009, Roberson requested that the Appeals Council review the decision denying benefits. AR 5. On September 11, 2009, the Appeals Council denied the request for review. AR 1-3. This action followed.
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), this Court reviews the Commissioner's decision to deny benefits. The decision will be disturbed only if it is not supported by substantial evidence, or if it is based upon the application of improper legal standards. Moncada v. Chater, 60 F.3d 521, 523 (9th Cir. 1995); Drouin v. Sullivan, 966 F.2d 1255, 1257 (9th Cir. 1992).
In this context, "substantial evidence" means "more than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance -- it is such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support the conclusion." Moncada, 60 F.3d at 523. In determining whether substantial evidence exists to support the Commissioner's decision, the Court examines the administrative record as a whole, considering adverse as well as supporting evidence. Drouin, 966 F.2d at 1257. Where the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, the Court must defer to the decision of the Commissioner. Moncada, 60 F.3d at 523.
A person qualifies as disabled and is eligible for benefits, "only if his physical or mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy." Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20, 21-22, 124 S. Ct. 376, 157 L. Ed. 2d 333 (2003).
The ALJ found that Roberson has the following severe impairments: back injury with bulging disc and headaches. AR 11. She has the residual functional capacity ("RFC") "to lift and carry twenty pounds occasionally and ten pounds frequently." AR 13. She can "stand and/or walk for six hours out of an eight-hour workday [and] sit for six hours out of an eight-hour workday. Pushing and/or pulling are unlimited other than lift and carry. [She] is limited to occasional postural limitations except for frequent climbing of stairs and never crawling. Environmentally, [she] needs to avoid concentrated exposure to extreme cold, avoid moderate exposure to vibration and void [sic] all exposure to ...