Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bradford v. Berryhill

United States District Court, C.D. California

June 27, 2017

TAMMY BRADFORD, Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          ALICIA G. ROSENBERG United States Magistrate Judge

         Plaintiff filed this action on December 10, 2015. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties consented to proceed before the magistrate judge. (Dkt. Nos. 12, 13.) On June 19, 2017, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation (“JS”) that addressed the disputed issues. The court has taken the matter under submission without oral argument.

         Having reviewed the entire file, the court affirms the decision of the Commissioner.

         I.

         PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         On July 10, 2012, Bradford filed applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income, and alleged an onset date of July 1, 2011. Administrative Record (“AR”) 25. The applications were denied initially and on reconsideration. AR 25, 68-69, 96-97. Bradford requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). On June 9, 2014, the ALJ conducted a hearing at which Bradford and a vocational expert testified. AR 40-67.

         On July 11, 2014, the ALJ issued a decision denying benefits. AR 22-34. On September 30, 2015, the Appeals Council denied the request for review. AR 12-17. This action followed.

         II.

         STANDARD OF REVIEW

         Pursuant 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).

         “Substantial 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 523.

         III.

         DISCUSSION

         A. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.