The opinion of the court was delivered by: Alicia G. Rosenberg United States Magistrate Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Kevin Bowman ("Bowman") filed a Complaint on February 10, 2010. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties filed Consents to proceed before the magistrate judge on March 3 and 5, 2010. (Dkt. Nos. 8, 9.) On October 18, 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. I.
On June 14, 2006, Bowman filed an application for supplemental security income. Administrative Record ("AR") 9. He alleged a disability onset date of July 1, 2005. Id. The application was denied initially and upon reconsideration. Id. Bowman requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"). AR 44. On April 7, 2008, an ALJ conducted a hearing at which Bowman and his mother testified. AR 17-28. On May 9, 2008, the ALJ issued a decision denying benefits. AR 9-16. On June 3, 2008, Bowman requested that the Appeals Council review the decision denying benefits. AR 5. On December 17, 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 ...