The opinion of the court was delivered by: John E. Mcdermott United States Magistrate Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AFFIRMING DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY PROCEEDINGS
On October 12, 2010, Martha O. Thomas ("Plaintiff" or "Claimant" or "Thomas") filed a Complaint seeking review of the decision by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("Commissioner") denying her March 28, 2006, applications for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income. On April 12, 2011, the Commissioner filed an Answer to the Complaint. On August 22, 2011, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation ("JS") setting forth their positions and the issues in dispute.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), both parties consented to proceed before the undersigned Magistrate Judge. After reviewing the pleadings, transcripts, and administrative record ("AR"), the Court concludes that the Commissioner's decision shouldbe affirmed and this case dismissed with prejudice.
Plaintiff is a 59 year old female alleging disability beginning September 29, 1999, due to chronic muscle pain in her arms, legs, and shoulders. (AR 16, 97.) Plaintiff has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since that date. (AR 18.)
Plaintiff's claims were denied initially on July 7, 2006, and on reconsideration on March 2, 2007. (AR 16.) Plaintiff filed a timely request for hearing, which was held on May 6, 2008, in San Bernardino, California, before Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") Jay E. Levine. (AR 16-26.) Vocational expert ("VE") Troy L. Cott also testified. (AR 16.) Plaintiff was represented by counsel. (AR 16.)
The ALJ issued an unfavorable decision on June 23, 2008. (AR 16-26.) The Appeals Council denied review on May 14, 2010. (AR 8-10.
As reflected in the Joint Stipulation, the issues Plaintiff raises as grounds for reversal and remand are as follows:
1. Whether the ALJ has properly considered all of the relevant medical evidence of record.
2. Whether the ALJ has properly considered Plaintiff's subjective complaints and properly assessed Plaintiff's credibility.
Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), this Court reviews the ALJ's decision to determine whether the ALJ's findings are supported by substantial evidence and free of legal error. Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996); see also DeLorme v. Sullivan, 924 F.2d 841, 846 (9th Cir. 1991) (ALJ's disability determination must be supported by substantial evidence and based on the proper legal standards).
Substantial evidence means "'more than a mere scintilla,' but less than a preponderance." Saelee v. Chater, 94 F.3d 520, 521-22 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971)). Substantial evidence is "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Richardson, 402 U.S. at 401 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
This Court must review the record as a whole and consider adverse as well as supporting evidence. Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 882 (9th Cir. 2006). Where evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, the ALJ's decision must be upheld. Morgan v. Comm'r of the Soc. Sec. Admin., 169 F.3d 595, 599 (9th Cir. 1999). "However, a reviewing court must consider the entire record as a whole and may not affirm simply by isolating a 'specific quantum of supporting evidence.'" Robbins, 466 ...