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 15, 2016, Maria Nila Camarena (“Plaintiff”
or “Claimant”) filed a complaint seeking review
of the decision by the Commissioner of Social Security
(“Commissioner”) denying Plaintiff's
applications for Social Security Disability Insurance
benefits and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”)
benefits. The Commissioner filed an Answer on December 1,
2016. On February 24, 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 59-year-old female who applied for Social Security
Disability Insurance benefits and Supplemental Security
Income benefits on August 29, 2012, alleging disability
beginning April 29, 2010. (AR 33.) The ALJ determined that
Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity
since April 29, 2010, the alleged onset date. (AR 35.)
claims were denied initially on April 18, 2013 and on
reconsideration on October 17, 2013. (AR 33.) Plaintiff filed
a timely request for hearing, which was held before
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Mark B.
Greenberg on January 6, 2015, in Moreno Valley, California.
(AR 33.) Plaintiff appeared and testified at the hearing and
was represented by counsel with a Spanish interpreter
appearing as well. (AR 33.) Vocational expert
(“VE”) Mary E. Jesko also appeared and testified
at the hearing. (AR 33.)
issued an unfavorable decision on January 21, 2015. (AR
33-43.) The Appeals Council denied review on June 13, 2016.
reflected in the Joint Stipulation, Plaintiff raises the
following disputed issues as grounds for reversal and remand:
1. Whether the ALJ properly determined that Maria Camarena
could perform her past relevant work.
2. Whether the ALJ propounded a complete hypothetical to the
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
conclusion.” Richardson, 402 U.S. at 401
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
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.'” Robbin ...