United States District Court, C.D. California
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
G. ROSENBERG United States Magistrate Judge.
Banales filed this action on June 13, 2016. Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties consented to proceed before
the magistrate judge. (Dkt. Nos. 11, 12.) On January 31,
2017, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation
(“JS”) that addressed the disputed issue. The
court has taken the matter under submission without oral
reviewed the entire file, the court reverses and remands the
decision of the Commissioner for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
filed applications for disability insurance benefits and
supplemental security income benefits in July 2012. In both
applications, she alleged an onset date of April 1, 2011.
Administrative Record (“AR”) 18. The applications
were denied initially and on reconsideration. AR 94-95,
122-23. Banales requested a hearing before an Administrative
Law Judge (“ALJ”). On October 14, 2014, the ALJ
conducted a hearing at which Banales and a vocational expert
(“VE”) testified. AR 32-60. On December 29, 2014,
the ALJ issued a decision denying benefits. AR 15-28. On
April 14, 2016, the Appeals Council denied review. AR 1-5.
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