United States District Court, C.D. California
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
OSWALD PARADA, Magistrate Judge.
The Court now rules as follows with respect to the disputed issue listed in the Joint Stipulation ("JS").
As reflected in the Joint Stipulation, the sole disputed issue raised by Plaintiff as the ground for reversal and/or remand is whether the ALJ failed to provide clear and convincing reasons to reject Plaintiff's subjective complaints. (JS at 3.)
STANDARD OF REVIEW
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's Findings.
The ALJ found that Plaintiff has the severe impairments of back injury, and prostatic intra epithelial neoplasia, high grade, right prostate. (Administrative Record ("AR") at 26.) The ALJ found that Plaintiff had the residual functional capacity ("RFC") to perform a full range of medium work. (Id. at 27.)
Relying on the testimony of a vocational expert ("VE"), the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff was capable of performing his past relevant work as a dialysis technician as customarily performed (classified as light exertional work although Plaintiff had actually performed it at a medium exertional level); a paper cutter as actually performed (classified as medium exertional level although Plaintiff described performing it at a light exertional level); and as a fork lift operator as actually performed by Plaintiff (classified as ...