The opinion of the court was delivered by: Alicia G. Rosenberg United States Magistrate Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Jeanine A. Ideker filed this action on September 25, 2009. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties consented to proceed before Magistrate Judge Rosenberg on October 23 and 26, 2009. (Dkt. Nos. 7, 9.) On June 9, 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 remands this matter to the Commissioner for proceedings consistent with this Opinion.
On December 27, 2004, Ideker filed applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits. Administrative Record ("AR") 62. In both applications, Ideker alleged a disability onset date of September 4, 1994. Id. The applications were denied initially and on reconsideration. AR 62, 82, 91. Ideker requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"). AR 97. On February 12, 2007, the ALJ conducted a hearing at which Ideker and a vocational expert ("VE") testified. AR 338-71. On April 24, 2007, the ALJ issued a decision denying benefits. AR 59. On August 31, 2007, the Appeals Council denied Ideker's request for review. AR 52-54. Thereafter, Ideker submitted additional evidence to the Appeals Council. AR 8-46, 48-51. On December 31, 2008, the Appeals Counsel again denied Ideker's request for review. AR 6-7. 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) (per curiam); Drouin v. Sullivan, 966 F.2d 1255, 1257 (9th Cir. 1992).
"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. When the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, the Court must defer to the Commissioner's decision. Moncada, 60 F.3d at 523.
A person qualifies as disabled, and thereby eligible for such 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) (citation and quotation marks omitted).
The ALJ found that Ideker met the insured status requirements through March 31, 2000. AR 64.
Ideker has the severe impairment of fibromyalgia. AR 64. Ideker has the residual functional capacity ("RFC") to perform light work, except that she can only "lift or carry 10 pounds frequently and 20 pounds occasionally." AR 65, 69. She can stand or walk (with normal breaks) for a total of about 6 hours in an 8-hour workday and sit (with normal breaks) for a total of about 6 hours in an 8-hour workday. AR 65-66. She can occasionally climb ramps and stairs, balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl. AR 66. She should avoid concentrated exposure to hazards. Id.
The ALJ found that Ideker cannot perform at least some of her past relevant work, but "there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that [she] can perform," such as ...