United States District Court, D. Arizona
MICHELLE H. BURNS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Evleen Notali’s appeal from the Social Security Administration’s final decision to deny her claim for disability insurance benefits. After reviewing the administrative record and the arguments of the parties, the Court now issues the following ruling.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In November, 2009, Plaintiff filed an application for disability insurance benefits alleging disability beginning November 2005, due to a back impairment and migraine headaches. (Transcript of Administrative Record (“Tr.”) at 122-28, 181.) On February 24, 2012, an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), after a hearing, issued a decision denying Plaintiff disability benefits. (Tr. at 12-20.) The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for review on June 28, 2013, (Tr. at 1-6), making the ALJ’s decision the final decision of the Commissioner. In this appeal that followed, Plaintiff asserts two claims of error: (1) the ALJ erred by rejecting reported impairment related limitations and symptoms, and (2) the ALJ erred by rejecting the treating physician’s medical opinions. (Doc. 17, at 10, 13.)
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court must affirm the ALJ’s findings if the findings are supported by substantial evidence and are free from reversible legal error. See Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 720 (9th Cir. 1998). Substantial evidence means “more than a mere scintilla” and “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971) (citation omitted); see Reddick, 157 F.3d at 720.
In determining whether substantial evidence supports a decision, the Court considers the administrative record as a whole, weighing both the evidence that supports and the evidence that detracts from the ALJ’s conclusion. See Reddick, 157 F.3d at 720. “The ALJ is responsible for determining credibility, resolving conflicts in medical testimony, and for resolving ambiguities.” Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 1995); see Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 750 (9th Cir. 1989). “If the evidence can reasonably support either affirming or reversing the [Commissioner’s] conclusion, the court may not substitute its judgment for that of the [Commissioner].” Reddick, 157 F.3d at 720-21.
III. THE ALJ’S FINDINGS
In order to be eligible for disability or social security benefits, a claimant must demonstrate an “inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). An ALJ determines a claimant’s eligibility for benefits by following a five-step sequential evaluation:
(1) determine whether the applicant is engaged in “substantial gainful activity”;
(2) determine whether the applicant has a medically severe impairment or combination of impairments;
(3) determine whether the applicant’s impairment equals one of a number of listed impairments that the Commissioner acknowledges as so severe as to preclude the applicant from engaging in substantial gainful activity;
(4) if the applicant’s impairment does not equal one of the listed impairments, determine whether the applicant is capable of performing his or her past relevant work;
(5) if the applicant is not capable of performing his or her past relevant work, determine whether the applicant is able to perform other work in the national economy in ...