The opinion of the court was delivered by: Alicia G. Rosenberg United States Magistrate Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
John Shannon ("Shannon") filed this action on March 23, 2010. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties consented to proceed before the magistrate judge on April 7 and 9, 2010. (Dkt. Nos. 8, 9.) On November 29, 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 July 12, 2007, Shannon filed an application for disability insurance benefits. Administrative Record ("AR") 20. Shannon also filed an application for supplemental security income benefits. Id. In both applications, Shannon alleged a disability onset date of June 13, 2007. Id. The applications were denied initially and upon reconsideration. AR 70-74, 76-80. Shannon requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"). AR 81. On September 25, 2009, the ALJ conducted a hearing at which Shannon, a medical expert and a vocational expert ("VE") testified. AR 34-65. On November 17, 2009, the ALJ issued a decision denying benefits. AR 17-29. On January 25, 2010, the Appeals Council denied the request for review. AR 9-11. On March 16, 2010, the Appeals Council set aside its earlier action to consider additional information and again denied the request for review. AR 1-5. 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).
"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 ...