United States District Court, C.D. California
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AFFIRMING DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
JOHN E. MCDERMOTT, Magistrate Judge.
On May 1, 2014, Sarah Nicole Roundtree ("Plaintiff" or "Claimant") filed a complaint seeking review of the decision by the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") denying Plaintiff's application for Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") benefits. The Commissioner filed an Answer on September 17, 2014. On January 15, 2015, 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 22-year-old female who applied for Supplemental Security Income benefits on August 5, 2011. (AR 26.) The ALJ determined that Plaintiff has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since August 5, 2011, the application date. (AR 28.)
Plaintiff's claim was denied initially on October 24, 2011 and on reconsideration on March 30, 2012. (AR 26.) Plaintiff filed a timely request for hearing, which was held before Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") Lawrence J. Duran on November 19, 2012 in Moreno Valley, California. (AR 26.) Claimant appeared and testified at the hearing and was represented by counsel. (AR 26.) Vocational expert ("VE") Gloria J. Lasoff also appeared and testified at the hearing. (AR 26.)
The ALJ issued an unfavorable decision on November 23, 2012. (AR 26-38.) The Appeals Council denied review on February 4, 2014. (AR 3-6.)
As reflected in the Joint Stipulation, Plaintiff raises the following disputed issues as grounds for reversal and remand:
1. Whether the ALJ adequately developed the record.
2. Whether the ALJ's Residual Functional Capacity ("RFC") assessment is supported by substantial evidence.
3. Whether the ALJ properly evaluated the required factors in determining Plaintiff's credibility.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
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 ...