The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary L. Sharpe District Court Judge
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Steven Mosinski challenges the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of supplemental security income (SSI) and disability insurance benefits (DIB) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3). (Dkt. No. 23.) In a Report and Recommendation (R&R) filed March 7, 2011, Magistrate Judge Victor E. Bianchini recommended that the decision of the Commissioner be affirmed.*fn1 Pending are Mosinski's objections to the R&R. (Dkt. No. 23.) Upon careful consideration of the arguments, the relevant parts of the record, and the applicable law, the court adopts the R&R in its entirety.
A. Report and Recommendation
By statute and rule, district courts are authorized to refer social security petitions to magistrate judges for proposed findings and recommendations regarding disposition. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A),(B); N.D.N.Y. L.R. 40.1, 72.3(d); Gen. Order No. 18. Before entering final judgment, this court routinely reviews all report and recommendation orders in cases it has referred to a magistrate judge. If a party has objected to specific elements of the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations, this court reviews those findings and recommendations de novo. See Almonte v. N.Y. State Div. of Parole,No. 04-cv-484, 2006 WL 149049, at *6-7 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2006). In those cases where no party has filed an objection, or only a vague or general objection has been filed, this court reviews the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge for clear error. See id.
B. Commissioner's Decision
The standard for reviewing the Commissioner's final decision under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) is well established and will not be repeated here. For a full discussion of the standard and the five-step process used by the Commissioner in evaluating whether a claimant is disabled under the Act, the court refers the parties to its previous opinion in Christiana v. Comm'r Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 1:05-CV-932, 2008 WL 759076, at *1-2 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2008).
In the R&R, Judge Bianchini affirmed the Commissioner's determination that Crohn's disease was a severe impairment, but that, as a result of a medical improvement following non-embryonic stem cell treatment, Mosinski was no longer disabled. (See R&R at 8, Dkt. No. 22.) In his objections, Mosinski reasserts the argument rejected by Judge Bianchini that the ALJ erred in failing to find that Crohn's disease is per se disabling. (See Pl. Objections at 3-6, Dkt. No. 23.) The court notes, as did Judge Bianchini, that Mosinski has "offered no support for his claim that Crohn's disease is disabling per se." (R&R at 13, Dkt. No. 22.) Thus, upon de novo review, and for the reasons thoroughly articulated in the R&R, (see id. at 8-13), the court affirms the ALJ's finding of medical improvement.
B. Supporting Opinion of Non-Treating Physician
In affirming the ALJ's determination of medical improvement, Judge Bianchini relied upon testimony in the record of non-examining state agency review physician Donna M. White. (See id. at 12.) Mosinski objects to this reliance and asserts that it "place[s] unwarranted weight upon the findings of Dr. White." (See Pl. Objections at 6, Dkt. No. 23.) Additionally, Mosinski notes that because Dr. White never examined him, "her opinion is entitled to no weight at all."*fn2 (See id. at 7.) However, as Judge Bianchini correctly observed, "[i]t is well settled that an ALJ is entitled to rely upon the opinions of both examining and non-examining State agency medical consultants, since such consultants are deemed to be qualified experts in the field of social security disability." (R&Rat 12, Dkt. No. 22(citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1512(b)(6), 404.1513(c), 404.1527(f)(2), ...