The opinion of the court was delivered by: John E. Mcdermott United States Magistrate Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AFFIRMING DECISION OF COMMISSIONER PROCEEDINGS
On February 10, 2012, Dianna L. Duniven ("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. The Commissioner filed an Answer on May 29, 2012. On September 4, 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 should be affirmed and this case dismissed with prejudice.
Plaintiff is a 50 year old female who applied for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits on November 19, 2008, alleging disability beginning November 29, 12, 2007. (AR 23.) Plaintiff did not engage in substantial gainful activity during the period from her alleged onset date of November 29, 2007, through her date last insured of December 31, 2008. (AR 23.)
Plaintiff's claim was denied initially on April 2, 2009, and on reconsideration on May 26, 2009. (AR 23.) Plaintiff filed a timely request for hearing, which was held before Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") Michael D. Radensky on June 22, 2010, in San Bernardino, California. (AR 23.) Claimant appeared and testified at the hearing, and was represented by counsel. (AR 23.) Medical expert ("ME") Arthur Lorber, M.D., and vocational expert ("VE") Luis O. Mas also appeared and testified at the hearing. (AR 23.)
The ALJ issued an unfavorable decision on August 5, 2010. (AR 23-26.) The Appeals Council denied review on December 20, 2011. (AR 1-6.)
As reflected in the Joint Stipulation, Plaintiff only raises the following disputed issue as the basis for reversal and remand:
1. Whether the ALJ properly considered Dr. Savodnik's agreed medical opinion.
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 ...