The opinion of the court was delivered by: George H. Lowe, United States Magistrate Judge
On May 24, 2005, Plaintiff Kim M. Battista protectively applied for supplemental security income ("SSI"). Administrative Transcript ("T") 83-85. On November 22, 2005, the application was denied by the Social Security Administration. T 26-29. On November 8, 2007, a hearing was held before an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"). T 649-91. On June 26, 2008, a second hearing was held before the ALJ. T 692-721. On August 6, 2008, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff was not disabled. T 13-21.
Plaintiff appealed to the Appeals Council. T 11. On January 9, 2009, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review, making the ALJ's decision the final decision of the Commissioner. T 8-10. Plaintiff commenced this action on May 15, 2009. Dkt. No. 1.
Plaintiff makes the following claims:
1. The ALJ's residual functional capacity ("RFC") determination is not supported by substantial evidence because the ALJ failed to fully develop the record and to follow the treating physician rule. Dkt. No. 17 at 18-21.
2. The ALJ erred when he failed to acknowledge or evaluate testimony from two witnesses and failed to apply the appropriate legal standards when evaluating Plaintiff's credibility. Dkt. No. 17 at 21-24.
3. The ALJ's finding that Plaintiff can perform her past relevant work as a data entry clerk was not supported by substantial evidence. Dkt. No. 17 at 24-25.
Defendant disagrees, and argues that the decision should be affirmed. Dkt. No. 20.
To be considered disabled, a plaintiff seeking disability insurance benefits or supplemental security income benefits must establish that he is "unable 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 twelve months." 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(A). In addition, the plaintiff's physical or mental impairment or impairments [must be] of such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy, regardless of whether such work exists in the immediate area in which he lives, or whether a specific job vacancy exists for him, or whether he would be hired if he applied for work.
42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(B).
Acting pursuant to its statutory rulemaking authority (42 U.S.C. §§ 405(a), 1383(d)(1)), the Social Security Administration ("SSA") has promulgated regulations establishing a five-step sequential evaluation process to determine disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. "If at any step a finding of disability or non-disability can be made, the SSA will not review the claim further." Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20, 24 (2003).
At the first step, the agency will find non-disability unless the claimant shows that he is not working at a "substantial gainful activity." [20 C.F.R.] §§ 404.1520(b), 416.920(b). At step two, the SSA will find non-disability unless the claimant shows that he has a "severe impairment," defined as "any impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limits [the claimant's] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities." [20 C.F.R.] §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). At step three, the agency determines whether the impairment which enabled the claimant to survive step two is on the list of impairments presumed severe enough to render one disabled; if so, the claimant qualifies. [20 C.F.R. §§] 404.1520(d), 416.920(d). If the claimant's impairment is not on the list, the inquiry proceeds to step four, at which the SSA assesses whether the claimant can do his previous work; unless he shows that he cannot, he is determined not to be disabled. If the claimant survives the fourth stage, the fifth, and final, step requires the SSA to consider so-called "vocational factors" (the claimant's age, education, and past work experience), and to determine whether the claimant is capable of performing other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy. [20 C.F.R.] §§ 404.1520(f), 404.1560(c), 416.920(f), 416.9630(c).
Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. at 24-25 (footnotes omitted).
The plaintiff-claimant bears the burden of proof regarding the first four steps. See Draegert v. Barnhart, 311 F.3d 468, 472 (2d Cir. 2002). If the plaintiff-claimant meets his or her burden of proof on all four steps, the burden then shifts to the defendant-Commissioner to prove that the plaintiff-claimant is capable of ...