MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

VICTOR B. KENTON, Magistrate Judge.

This matter is before the Court for review of the Decision by the Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff's application for disability benefits. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(c), the parties have consented that the case may be handled by the Magistrate Judge. The action arises under 42 U.S.C. §405(g), which authorizes the Court to enter judgment upon the pleadings and transcript of the record before the Commissioner. The parties have filed the Joint Stipulation ("JS"), and the Commissioner has filed the certified Administrative Record ("AR").

Plaintiff raises the following issues:

(JS at 2-3.)

This Memorandum Opinion will constitute the Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law. After reviewing the matter, the Court concludes that the decision of the Commissioner must be affirmed.

I

THE ALJ PROPERLY CONSIDERED THE OPINION OF THE TREATING PHYSICIAN

On January 29, 2013, Plaintiff filed his Application for Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB"). (AR 150-151.) Plaintiff was born August 4, 1981, and claimed in his Application that he became disabled on October 1, 2010. (Id.)

Plaintiff had a ten-year history with the Army and four years with the Air Force (AR 13, 33-35, 312.) He served several tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. (AR 34, 312.) In 2010, he began having flashbacks and anxiety, and sought treatment. (AR 14, 35-36, 312.) The Air Force determined that Plaintiff could no longer fly. (AR 41, 312.) He applied for Veteran's Benefits and was awarded a 70% disability. (AR 13-14, 42.) Plaintiff stays at home performing some household chores and other activities of daily living, and lives with his wife, who works full time, and their three young children. (AR 14, 38.)

At the administrative hearing held on March 7, 2014 (AR 28-50), Plaintiff testified that he has a high level of anxiety which sometimes overwhelms him; and that he has a hard time leaving his house. He asserted that his mental or physical impairments would keep him from doing even very simple unskilled jobs for eight hours a day and five days a week. (AR 39.)

Since October 2010, Plaintiff has been receiving mental health treatment (AR 313, 328-332.) In October 2012, his treating physician, Dr. Adeyemo, wrote a letter on Plaintiff's behalf as part of an appeal of the findings and recommendations of the U.S. Air Force Physical Evaluations Board. (AR 335.) In that letter, Dr. Adeyemo rendered his opinion that Plaintiff was severely impaired in his level of functioning. (AR 334.) A similar letter was written by Dr. Adeyemo addressed "To Whom It May Concern" on March 11, 2014. (AR 521.)

At issue in this case is the ALJ's rejection or depreciation of Dr. Adeyemo's opinion, as set forth in the unfavorable Decision. (AR 9-24.) After reviewing all the evidence in the record, the ALJ determined to give "little weight" to the opinion of Dr. Adeyemo, asserting as the foundation for this assessment that the opinion is brief, conclusory and inadequately supported by clinical findings; that Dr. Adeyemo did not provide an explanation for the assessment or any specific functional limitations that prevented Plaintiff from working; and that the opinion is inconsistent with the objective medical evidence discussed previously in the Decision, "which shows multiple reports of decreased anxiety, nightmares and flashbacks with prescription medication and therapy sessions." (AR 21.)

Plaintiff argues that Dr. Adeyemo's opinions should not have been so severely depreciated because, he argues, Dr. Adeyemo did acknowledge that Plaintiff has had some improvement, but was nowhere near his "base line."

The Court has carefully examined the ALJ's Decision to determine if it is supported by substantial evidence, and in particular, whether the rejection by the ALJ of Dr. Adeyemo's opinion is supported by specific and legitimate reasons, as required by well established case law. See, e.g., Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830-31, 834 (9th Cir. 1995).

The Court observes that the ALJ's Decision does not resemble some decisions which simply contain general statements about rejecting a treating physician's opinion because it is inconsistent with the objective medical evidence as a whole, without citations to that particular evidence. Here, however, the ALJ clearly did a careful examination of all the medical evidence, and in fact, summarized it in great detail in his Decision before articulating his rejection, or at least severe depreciation, of Dr. Adeyemo's opinion. (See, e.g., AR at 18-21.)

In fact, the ALJ's references to particular progress notes and other medical evidence is supported by substantial evidence. For example, on April 1, 2011, Dr. Adeyemo indicated that Plaintiff stated he feels better and rated his own overall functioning as 80% on a scale of 1 to 100%. (AR 471.)

On December 10, 2012, Dr. Adeyemo noted Plaintiff's statement that he takes his children to school in the morning and picks them up later in the day; he has been helping at home with some chores including walking the dog; and that he has not experienced nightmares or flashbacks in the past three weeks. He was casually but appropriately groomed, and alert and fully oriented. He speech was clear and relevant with no disturbances of thought processes or contexts. There was no report of psychosis, and Plaintiff demonstrated fair insight and judgment. (AR 477.)

The above examples are cited as being consistent, in the Court's view, with the record as a whole, which the ALJ summarized in greater detail. The Court cannot find that the ALJ's conclusion that Plaintiff's progression shows decreased symptoms with treatment compliance is not consistent with the record. (See AR at 21.)

With regard to Plaintiff's argument that the ALJ should have accepted the opinion of Dr. Adeyemo that despite improvement, Plaintiff has not reached his base line, the Court also notes that the ALJ's determination of Plaintiff's Residual Functional Capacity ("RFC") considered an evaluation that Plaintiff, although improved, still had some symptomology, and determined that he can perform work that is focused more on data or things rather than people; he must avoid loud noises; he must avoid emergency and crisis situations and fast paced or assembly line type work, that he is limited to non-public work; and that his limitation is to work in a very structured environment. (AR 13.) Considering the RFC adopted by the ALJ, it cannot be stated that he totally rejected Dr. Adeyemo's opinion, or certainly, the substantial medical evidence in the record as to Plaintiff's mental health treatment since 2010, but in fact, considered this evidence and factored it into his determination of Plaintiff's RFC.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court determines that the ALJ's opinion is supported by substantial evidence; that there are specific and legitimate reasons set forth in the Decision to support the depreciation of the treating physician's opinion; and for the foregoing reasons, that Decision and the determination of non-disability will not be disturbed.

The decision of the ALJ will be affirmed. The matter will be dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.