The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Oswald Parada United States Magistrate Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The Court now rules as follows with respect to the disputed issue listed*fn1 in the Joint Stipulation ("JS").*fn2
As reflected in the Joint Stipulation, the sole disputed issue raised by Plaintiff as the ground for reversal and/or remand is whether the administrative law judge ("ALJ") properly considered Plaintiff's residual functional capacity ("RFC") for the mental demands of work. (JS at 4.)
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).
Plaintiff, a thirteen-year veteran of the United States Air Force, applied for a closed period of disability from March 31, 2008, through December 1, 2009. (JS at 7; AR at 18.) Plaintiff served from February 4, 1995, through March 31, 2008. (AR at 91, 107.)
The ALJ found that Plaintiff has the severe impairment of posttraumatic stress disorder, with anxiety and depression. (AR at 18.) The ALJ further found that Plaintiff had the RFC to perform a full range of work at all exertional levels, with the non-exertional limitations of only simple, routine tasks, and minimal public contact. (Id. at 21.)
Relying on the testimony of a vocational expert ("VE"), the ALJ determined that Plaintiff was unable to perform her past relevant work of pickup/delivery; logistic planner; and supply clerk. (Id. at 22.) The ALJ also relied on the VE's testimony to determine that there were alternative occupations Plaintiff could perform, such as laundry worker, ...