The opinion of the court was delivered by: John E. Mcdermott United States Magistrate Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REVERSING DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY AND REMANDING FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PROCEEDINGS
On October 20, 2011, Nuritsa Bekaryan ("Plaintiff" or "Claimant") filed a complaint seeking review of the decision by the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") denying Plaintiff's application for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income benefits. The Commissioner filed an Answer on January 26, 2012. On April 10, 2012, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation ("JS"). The matter is now ready for decision.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), both parties consented to proceed before this Magistrate Judge. After reviewing the pleadings, transcripts, and administrative record ("AR"), the Court concludes that the Commissioner's decision must be reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this Memorandum Opinion and Order and with law.
Plaintiff is a 58 year old female who applied for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income benefits on March 11, 2009, alleging disability beginning June 29, 2008. (AR 11.) At the May 27, 2010, hearing, Claimant, by and through her attorney of record, amended the alleged onset of disability to February 6, 2009. (AR 11.) Plaintiff has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the amended alleged onset date of February 6, 2009. (AR 13.)
Plaintiff's claims were denied initially on May 5, 2009, and on reconsideration on July 30, 2009. (AR 11.) Plaintiff filed a timely request for hearing, which was held before Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") Joseph Lisiecki on May 27, 2010, in West Los Angeles, California. (AR 41-60.) Claimant appeared and testified at the hearing, and was represented by counsel. (AR 11.) Vocational expert ("VE") Gail L. Maron also appeared and testified at the hearing. (AR 11.) Medical expert Joselyn E. Bailey, M.D., testified telephonically. (AR 11.) The ALJ issued an unfavorable decision on June 17, 2010. (AR 11-19.) The Appeals Council denied review on August 19, 2011. (AR 1-6.)
As reflected in the Joint Stipulation, Plaintiff only raises the following disputed issue as a ground for reversal and remand:
1. Whether the ALJ's failure to impose any manipulative limitations was supported by substantial evidence.
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 ...