The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Oswald Parada United States Magistrate Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The Court*fn1 now rules as follows with respect to the three disputed issues listed in the Joint Stipulation ("JS").*fn2
As reflected in the Joint Stipulation, the disputed issues which Plaintiff is raising as the grounds for reversal and/or remand are as follows:
1. Whether the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") properly considered the consultative examining psychiatrist's opinions;
2. Whether the ALJ properly considered the consultative examining orthopedic physician's opinions; and
3. Whether the ALJ posed a complete hypothetical question to the vocational expert ("VE").
Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), this Court reviews the Commissioner's decision to determine whether the Commissioner's findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether the proper legal standards were applied. DeLorme v. Sullivan, 924 F.2d 841, 846 (9th Cir. 1991). Substantial evidence means "more than a mere scintilla" but less than a preponderance. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401, 91 S.Ct. 1420, 28 L.Ed. 2d 842 (1971); Desrosiers v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 846 F.2d 573, 575-76 (9th Cir. 1988). Substantial evidence is "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Richardson, 402 U.S. at 401 (citation omitted). The Court must review the record as a whole and consider adverse as well as supporting evidence. Green v. Heckler, 803 F.2d 528, 529-30 (9th Cir. 1986). Where evidence is susceptible of more than one rational interpretation, the Commissioner's decision must be upheld. Gallant v. Heckler, 753 F.2d 1450, 1452 (9th Cir. 1984).
A. The ALJ Properly Considered the Opinions of the Consultative Examining Psychiatrist
On February 24, 2006, Kent Jordan, M.D., conducted a psychiatric evaluation of Plaintiff. (Administrative Record ("AR") at 271.) Dr. Jordan determined that Plaintiff was highly manipulative. (Id.) He also determined that Plaintiff could probably perform simple repetitive tasks, although he might have problems sustaining this due to apparent cognitive defects. (Id.) Dr. Jordan stated that Plaintiff might need special supervision to do even simple repetitive tasks due to cognitive impairments, might have problems completing a normal workweek, and might have problems accepting instructions from supervisors due to his irritability and anger at authority. (Id.)
In his decision, the ALJ accorded Dr. Jordan's opinions "significant probative weight," ...