United States District Court, C.D. California
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
G. ROSENBERG United States Magistrate Judge.
filed this action on December 8, 2016. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c), the parties consented to proceed before the
magistrate judge. (Dkt. Nos. 11, 12.) On July 13, 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 further proceedings at step
five of the sequential analysis.
filed an application for disability insurance benefits on
April 2, 2012 and an application for supplemental security
income benefits on July 12, 2012. Administrative Record
(“AR”) 106. In both applications, she alleged an
onset date of April 1, 2012. AR 24. The applications were
denied initially and on reconsideration. AR 83, 84, 101, 102.
Jones requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge
(“ALJ”). On July 10, 2014, the ALJ conducted a
hearing at which Jones and a vocational expert testified. AR
44-55. The ALJ issued a decision denying benefits on July 25,
2014. AR 103-112.
March 26, 2015, the Appeals Council granted the request for
review, vacated the decision and remanded for (1) a
determination at step five of the sequential analysis; (2)
evaluation and rating of Jones' mental impairment; (3)
reconsideration of Jones' residual functional capacity;
and (4) supplemental evidence from a vocational expert. AR
September 24, 2015, the ALJ conducted a hearing at which
Jones and a vocational expert testified. AR 56-68. On October
20, 2015, the ALJ issued a decision denying benefits. AR
24-31. On November 22, 2016, the Appeals Council denied the
request for 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