The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheri Pym United States Magistrate Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On August 17, 2012, plaintiff Maria Caballero filed a complaint against defendant, the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("Commissioner"), seeking a review of a denial of disability insurance benefits ("DIB") and supplemental security income ("SSI"). Both plaintiff and defendant have consented to proceed for all purposes before the assigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The court deems the matter suitable for adjudication without oral argument.
Plaintiff presents one issue for decision: whether the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") properly discounted plaintiff's subjective complaints. Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Complaint ("Pl.'s Mem.") at 6-21; Memorandum in Support of Defendant's Answer ("Def.'s Mem.") at 6-19.
Having carefully studied, inter alia, the parties' moving papers, the Administrative Record ("AR"), and the decision of the ALJ, the court concludes that, as detailed herein, the ALJ did not give clear and convincing reasons for discounting plaintiff's credibility. Consequently, the court remands this matter to the Commissioner in accordance with the principles and instructions enunciated in this Memorandum Opinion and Order.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, who was forty-seven years old on the date of her March 29, 2011 administrative hearing, has a twelfth grade education. AR at 16, 25, 120, 130. Plaintiff has past relevant work experience as a child care attendant, which is considered an unskilled job. Id. at 16, 125, 166.
On April 28, 2009, plaintiff filed an application for DIB and SSI, alleging that she had been disabled since October 1, 2008 due to a heart attack and injured right ankle. Id. at 9, 124. The Commissioner denied plaintiff's application initially and upon reconsideration, after which she filed a request for a hearing. Id. at 9, 46-56.
On March 29, 2011, plaintiff, represented by counsel, appeared and testified at a hearing before the ALJ. Id. at 21-41. On April 13, 2011, the ALJ denied plaintiff's claim for benefits. Id. at 6-17.
Applying the well-known five-step sequential evaluation process, the ALJ found, at step one, that plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since October 1, 2008, the alleged onset date. Id. at 11.
At step two, the ALJ found that plaintiff suffered from the following severe impairments: myocardial infarcation; cardiomegaly; fracture and dislocation of the right ankle; status post reduction and internal fixation; and an anxiety disorder. Id.
At step three, the ALJ found that plaintiff's impairments, whether individually or in combination, did not meet or medically equal one of the listed impairments set forth in 20 C.F.R. part 404, ...