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.
February 12, 2019, Jennifer Lynn Riddles
(“Plaintiff” or “Claimant”) filed a
complaint seeking review of the decision by the Commissioner
of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying
Plaintiff's application for Title II Social Security
Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”). (Dkt. 1.)
The Commissioner filed an Answer on May 20, 2019. (Dkt. 14.)
On August 16, 2019, the parties filed a Joint Submission
(“JS”). (Dkt. 16.) 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 56 year-old female who applied for Title II Social
Security Disability Insurance Benefits on June 9, 2015,
alleging disability beginning June 1, 2014. (AR 19.) The ALJ
determined that Plaintiff did not engage in substantial
gainful activity during the period from her alleged onset
date of June 1, 2014, through her date last insured of
December 31, 2016. (AR 21.)
claim was denied initially on January 7, 2016. (AR 19.)
Plaintiff filed a timely request for hearing, which was held
before Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Mason D.
Harrell, Jr., on February 13, 2018, in San Bernardino,
California. (AR 19.) Plaintiff appeared and testified at the
hearing and was represented by counsel. (AR 19.) Vocational
expert (“VE”) Jeff Komar also appeared and
testified at the hearing. (AR 19.)
issued an unfavorable decision on March 9, 2018. (AR 19-26.)
The Appeals Council denied review on December 19, 2018. (AR
reflected in the Joint Submission, Plaintiff only raises the
following disputed issue as ground for reversal and remand:
Whether the ALJ properly considered Plaintiff's right
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