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 July 10, 2012, Debra K. Willens ("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 October 24, 2012. On January 10, 2013, 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 affirmed and this case dismissed with prejudice.
Plaintiff is a 51 year old female who applied for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits on January 28, 2009, alleging disability beginning April 18, 2007. (AR 23.) Plaintiff has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since April 18, 2007, the alleged onset date. (AR 25.)
Plaintiff's claim was denied initially on June 29, 2009, and on reconsideration on September 17, 2009. (AR 23.) Plaintiff filed a timely request for hearing, which was held before Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") Milan M. Dostal on August 25, 2010, in Orange, California. (AR 23.) Claimant appeared and testified at the hearing, and was represented by counsel. (AR 23.) Vocational expert ("VE") Alan Boroskin also appeared and testified at the hearing. (AR 23.) The ALJ issued an unfavorable decision on December 10, 2010. (AR 23-31.) The Appeals Council denied review on April 25, 2012. (AR 1-6.)
As reflected in the Joint Stipulation, Plaintiff raises only the following disputed issue as the basis for reversal and remand:
1. Whether the ALJ's finding that Ms. Willens can perform work at all exertional levels is supported by substantial evidence and free of legal error.
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 ...