The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Jacqueline Chooljian United States Magistrate Judge
On January 25, 2012, plaintiff Imelda Mendoza de Santacruz ("plaintiff") filed a Complaint seeking review of the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of plaintiff's application for benefits. The parties have consented to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the parties' cross motions for summary judgment, respectively ("Plaintiff's Motion") and ("Defendant's Motion"). The Court has taken both motions under submission without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15; January 27, 2012 Case Management Order ¶ 5.
Based on the record as a whole and the applicable law, the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. The findings of the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") are supported by substantial evidence and are free from material error.*fn1
II. BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION
On January 26, 2009, plaintiff filed applications for Supplemental Security
Income and Disability Insurance Benefits. (Administrative Record ("AR") 19, 135, 140). Plaintiff asserted that she became disabled on November 1, 2008, due to depression. (AR 152). The ALJ examined the medical record and heard testimony from plaintiff (who was represented by counsel and assisted by a Spanish language interpreter), plaintiff's husband, a medical expert and a vocational expert on July 29, 2010. (AR 33-66).
On September 21, 2010, the ALJ determined that plaintiff was not disabled through the date of the decision. (AR 19-29). Specifically, the ALJ found:
(1) plaintiff suffered from the following severe impairments: psychotic disorder (not otherwise specified), mood disorder (not otherwise specified), and anxiety disorder (AR 21); (2) plaintiff's impairments, considered singly or in combination, did not meet or medically equal a listed impairment (AR 21); (3) plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity to perform a full range of work at all exertional levels with certain non-exertional limitations (AR 22-23); (4) plaintiff could not*fn2 perform her past relevant work (AR 27); (5) there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that plaintiff could perform, specifically cleaner, industrial cleaner, and laundry room attendant (AR 28-29); and (6) plaintiff's allegations regarding her limitations were not credible to the extent they were inconsistent with the ALJ's residual functional capacity assessment (AR 25).
The Appeals Council denied plaintiff's application for review. (AR 1).
III. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
A. Sequential Evaluation Process
To qualify for disability benefits, a claimant must show that the claimant is unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of a medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of at least twelve months. Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A)). The impairment must render the claimant incapable of performing the work claimant previously performed and incapable of performing any other substantial ...