United States District Court, C.D. California
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
ALICIA G. ROSENBERG, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Robby Dean Cogle filed this action on August 23, 2013. (Dkt. No. 4.) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties consented to proceed before the magistrate judge. (Dkt. Nos. 8, 9.) On April 17, 2014, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation that addressed the disputed issue. (Dkt. No. 17.) The court has taken the matter under submission without oral argument. Having reviewed the entire file, the court affirms the decision of the Commissioner.
On August 18 and 21, 2009, respectively, Cogle filed applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits, and alleged an onset date of June 5, 2009. Administrative Record ("AR") 22, 142, 154. The applications were denied initially and upon reconsideration. AR 22, 78-81. Cogle requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"). AR 96. On August 12, 2011, the ALJ conducted a hearing at which Cogle and a vocational expert testified. AR 35-77. On November 23, 2011, the ALJ issued a decision denying benefits. AR 19-30. On June 14, 2013, the Appeals Council denied the request for review. AR 1-5. This action followed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), this court reviews the Commissioner's decision to deny benefits. The decision will be disturbed only if it is not supported by substantial evidence, or if it is based upon the application of improper legal standards. Moncada v. Chater, 60 F.3d 521, 523 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam); Drouin v. Sullivan, 966 F.2d 1255, 1257 (9th Cir. 1992).
"Substantial evidence" means "more than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance - it is such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support the conclusion." Moncada, 60 F.3d at 523. In determining whether substantial evidence exists to support the Commissioner's decision, the court examines the administrative record as a whole, considering adverse as well as supporting evidence. Drouin, 966 F.2d at 1257. When the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, the court must defer to the Commissioner's decision. Moncada, 60 F.3d at 523.
A person qualifies as disabled, and thereby eligible for such benefits, "only if his physical or mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national ...