United States District Court, C.D. California
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AFFIRMING DECISION OF
THE COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
E. MCDERMOTT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
August 28, 2015, Zenaida Yuzon (“Plaintiff” or
“Claimant”) filed a complaint seeking review of
the decision by the Commissioner of Social Security
(“Commissioner”) denying Plaintiff's
application for Social Security Disability Insurance
benefits. The Commissioner filed an Answer on December 9,
2015. On February 17, 2017, the parties filed a Joint
Stipulation (“JS”). The matter is now ready for
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), both parties consented to proceed
bef ore 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.
is a 66-year-old female who applied for Social Security
Disability Insurance benefits on January 18, 2012, alleging
disability beginning October 28, 2009. (AR 16.) The ALJ
determined that Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial
gainful activity since October 28, 2009, the alleged onset
date. (AR 18.)
claim was denied initially on August 28, 2012. (AR 16.)
Plaintiff filed a timely request for hearing, which was held
before Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Elizabeth
R. Lishner on May 21, 2013 in West Los Angeles, California.
(AR 16.) Plaintiff appeared and testified at the hearing and
was represented by a non-attorney representative. (AR 16.)
Vocational expert (“VE”) Gail L. Maron also
appeared and testified at the hearing. (AR 16.)
issued an unfavorable decision on August 2, 2013. (AR 16-24.)
The Appeals Council denied review on March 26, 2015. (AR
reflected in the Joint Stipulation, Plaintiff only raises the
following disputed issue as a ground for reversal and remand:
1. Whether the ALJ properly determined that Plaintiff could
perform the past relevant work.
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
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