The opinion of the court was delivered by: Alicia G. Rosenberg United States Magistrate Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Vanna Chan filed this action on January 6, 2011. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties consented to proceed before the magistrate judge on February 25 and March 10, 2011. (Dkt. Nos. 8, 9.) On March 6, 2012, 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 October 31, 2008, Chan filed an application for supplemental security income, alleging an onset date of October 15, 2007. Administrative Record ("AR") 44, 131-37. The application was denied initially and upon reconsideration. AR 39-40. Chan requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"). AR 82. On January 27, 2010, the ALJ conducted a hearing at which Chan and a vocational expert testified.*fn1
AR 10-28. On February 11, 2010, the ALJ issued a decision denying benefits. AR 41-53. On September 1, 2010, the Appeals Council denied the request for review. AR 5-8. 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) (per curiam); 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.