The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Jacqueline Chooljian United States Magistrate Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF REMAND
On July 12, 2012, plaintiff Sharon M. Randle ("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 7, 2013 Order ¶ 4.
Based on the record as a whole and the applicable law, the decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED AND REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order of Remand.
II. BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION On March 23, 2009, plaintiff filed an application for Supplemental Security
Income benefits. (Administrative Record ("AR") 102). Plaintiff asserted that she became disabled on October 7, 2007, due to back problems, "disc located left lower back," chronic high blood pressure, chronic arthritis and chronic asthma. (AR 132). The Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") examined the medical record and heard testimony from plaintiff (who was represented by counsel) and a vocational expert on February 1, 2011. (AR 27-47).
On March 10, 2011, the ALJ determined that plaintiff was not disabled through the date of the decision. (AR 17-23). Specifically, the ALJ found:
(1) plaintiff suffered from the following severe impairments: arthritis in low back and hypertension (AR 19); (2) plaintiff's impairments, considered singly or in combination, did not meet or medically equal a listed impairment (AR 19);
(3) plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity to perform sedentary work (20 C.F.R. § 416.967(a)) with occasional climbing, balancing, stooping, kneeling, crouching and crawling (AR 20); (4) plaintiff had no past relevant work (AR 21);
(5) there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that plaintiff could perform, specifically final assembler, order clerk, telephone quotation clerk, and inspector (AR 22); 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 21).
The Appeals Council denied plaintiff's application for review. (AR 1).
III. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
A. Sequential Evaluation ...