The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Jacqueline Chooljian United States Magistrate Judge
On April 3, 2012, plaintiff Patricia Zamora ("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; April 20, 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 September 10, 2008, plaintiff filed an application for Disability Insurance Benefits. (Administrative Record ("AR") 125). Plaintiff asserted that she became disabled on June 9, 2008, due to carpel tunnel syndrome. (AR 147). The ALJ examined the medical record and heard testimony from plaintiff (who was represented by counsel) and a vocational expert on October 14, 2010. (AR 34-58).
On November 3, 2010, the ALJ determined that plaintiff was not disabled through the date of the decision. (AR 21-29). Specifically, the ALJ found:
(1) plaintiff suffered from the following severe impairments: bilateral carpal and cubital tunnel syndrome, degenerative disc disease of the cervical spine, and depression (AR 23);
(2) plaintiff's impairments, considered singly or in combination, did not meet or medically equal a listed impairment (AR 23);
(3) plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity essentially to perform light work (20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1567(b)) with additional limitations (AR 24);
(4) plaintiff *fn2 could perform her past relevant work as an eligibility worker (AR 27-28);
(5) alternatively, there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that plaintiff could perform, specifically storage facility clerk, sales attendant and parking lot 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 ...