United States District Court, C.D. California
DARLENE P. BENDER, Plaintiff,
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
G. ROSENBERG MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Bender filed this action on May 6, 2015. Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties consented to proceed before
the magistrate judge. (Dkt. Nos. 14, 15.) On July 18, 2016,
the parties filed a Joint Stipulation (“JS”) that
addressed the disputed issues. The court has taken the matter
under submission without oral argument.
reviewed the entire file, the court affirms the decision of
filed an application for disability insurance benefits on
August 1, 2012, and an application for supplemental security
income benefits on January 17, 2012. In both applications,
Bender alleged an onset date of February 1, 2005.
Administrative Record (“AR”) 15. The applications
were denied. AR 15, 124, 135. Bender requested a hearing
before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). On
August 27, 2013, the ALJ conducted a hearing at which Bender
and a vocational expert testified. AR 60-85. A supplemental
hearing was held on April 9, 2014, at which two medical
experts and a vocational expert testified. AR 33-59. On May
28, 2014, the ALJ issued a decision denying benefits. AR
12-22. On March 24, 2015, the Appeals Council denied the
request for review. AR 1-6. This action followed.
to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), this court has authority to
review 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).
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
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
economy.” Barnhart v. ...