The opinion of the court was delivered by: John E. Mcdermott United States Magistrate Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AFFIRMING DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY PROCEEDINGS
On August 4, 2012, Colleen Archuleta ("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 November 8, 2012. On March 18, 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 29 year old female who applied for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits on January 26, 2009. (AR 9.) The ALJ determined that Plaintiff has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since January 17, 2008, the alleged onset date of her disability. (AR 11.)
Plaintiff's claim was denied initially on April 6, 2009, and on reconsideration on July 2, 2009. (AR 9.) Plaintiff filed a timely request for hearing, which was held before Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") William K. Mueller on August 26, 2010, in San Bernardino, California. (AR 9.) Claimant appeared and testified at the hearing and was represented by counsel. (AR 9.) Vocational expert ("VE") Corinne J. Porter also appeared and testified at the hearing. (AR 9.)
The ALJ issued an unfavorable decision on November 5, 2010. (AR 9-17.) The Appeals Council denied review on June 8, 2012. (AR 1-4.)
As reflected in the Joint Stipulation, Plaintiff raises the following disputed issues as grounds for reversal and remand:
1. Whether the ALJ properly considered Plaintiff's February 2009 statement and November 2010 testimony.*fn1
2. Whether the ALJ properly considered the November 2010 lay testimony of Plaintiff's father.
3. Whether the ALJ properly considered the March 2009 opinions of psychiatric consultative examiner Romualdo Rodriguez, M.D.
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 F.3d at 882 (quoting Hammock v.
Bowen, 879 F.2d 498, 501 (9th Cir. 1989)); see also Orn v. Astrue,
495 F.3d 625, 630 (9th Cir. 2007).
THE SEQUENTIAL EVALUATION
The Social Security Act defines disability as the "inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or . . . can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months." 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A). The Commissioner has established a five-step sequential process to determine whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920.
The first step is to determine whether the claimant is presently engaging in substantial gainful activity. Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 746 (9th Cir. 2007). If the claimant is engaging in substantial gainful activity, disability benefits will be denied. Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140 (1987). Second, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has a severe impairment or combination of impairments. Parra, 481 F.3d at 746. An impairment is not severe if it does not significantly limit the claimant's ability to work. Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1290 (9th Cir. 1996). Third, the ALJ must determine whether the impairment is listed, or equivalent to an impairment listed, in 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, Appendix I of the regulations. Parra, 481 F.3d at 746. If the impairment meets or equals one of the listed impairments, the claimant is ...