Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20090715_0002963.CCA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 13:57:36+00:00

Document:
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, DEFENDANT.
Plaintiff filed this action on June 13, 2008, seeking review of the Commissioner's denial of his application for Supplemental Security Income payments. The parties filed Consents to proceed before the undersigned Magistrate Judge on June 27, 2008, and July 26, 2008. Pursuant to the Court's Order, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation on March 24, 2009, that addresses their positions concerning the disputed issues in the case. The Court has taken the Joint Stipulation under submission without oral argument.
Plaintiff then filed an action in District Court, Case No. CV 05-2643-PLA, challenging the Commissioner's decision. On April 5, 2006, the Court remanded the matter with instructions to evaluate the severity of plaintiff's mental impairment in light of the recently submitted new evidence. [AR at 443-52.] On August 9, 2006, the Appeals Council vacated the ALJ's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the Court's 2006 Order.*fn1 [AR at 460-61.] On March 3, 2008, a second hearing was held, at which plaintiff did not appear but was represented by counsel. [AR at 652-71.] Testimony was received from medical and vocational experts. [AR at 656-71.] On April 9, 2008, the ALJ determined that plaintiff was not disabled. [AR at 409-18.] This action followed.
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); Drouin v. Sullivan, 966 F.2d 1255, 1257 (9th Cir. 1992).
In this context, the term "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; see also Drouin, 966 F.2d at 1257. When 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; Hammock v. Bowen, 879 F.2d 498, 501 (9th Cir. 1989). Where the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, the Court must defer to the decision of the Commissioner. Moncada, 60 F.3d at 523; Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 1995); Drouin, 966 F.2d at 1258.
Persons are "disabled" for purposes of receiving Social Security benefits if they are unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity owing to a physical or mental impairment that is expected to result in death or which has lasted or is expected to last for a continuous period of at least twelve months. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A); Drouin, 966 F.2d at 1257.

References: § 405
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 423