United States District Court, C.D. California
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
G. ROSENBERG United States Magistrate Judge.
filed this action on November 15, 2016. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c), the parties consented to proceed before the
magistrate judge. (Dkt. Nos. 11, 13.) On May 30, 2017, 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 reverses the decision of
the Commissioner and remands for proceedings consistent with
August 2013, Meadows filed applications for disability
insurance benefits and supplemental security income, and
alleged an onset date of August 10, 2008. Administrative
Record (“AR”) 13. The applications were denied
initially and on reconsideration. AR 13, 115-16, 143-44.
Meadows requested a hearing before an Administrative Law
Judge (“ALJ”). On May 14, 2015, the ALJ conducted
a hearing at which Meadows and a vocational expert testified.
18, 2015, the ALJ issued a decision denying benefits. AR
10-23. The ALJ noted that Meadows was previously found not
disabled in a decision by an ALJ dated May 4, 2012. AR 13,
75-90. The onset date was amended to start the day after the
date of the prior ALJ's decision. AR 32-33. The ALJ found
new and material evidence that showed changed circumstances
in the period after May 4, 2012. AR 13.
September 20, 2016, the Appeals Council denied the request
for review. AR 1-5. This action followed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
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. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20,
21-22, 124 S.Ct. 376, 157 L.Ed.2d 333 (2003) (citation and
quotation marks omitted).