The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary L. Sharpe Chief Judge
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Frederick J. Miller challenges the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and seeks judicial review under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3). (See Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) After reviewing the administrative record and carefully considering Miller's arguments, the court affirms the Commissioner's decision and dismisses the Complaint.
On October 28, 2008, Miller filed an application for SSI under the Social Security Act ("the Act"), alleging disability since January 1, 2005. (See Tr.*fn1 at 50, 96-102.) After his application was denied, (see id. at 53-60), Miller requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), which was held on June 3, 2010, (see id. at 24-49, 61-63). On October 18, 2010, the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision denying the requested benefits, which became the Commissioner's final determination upon the Social Security Administration Appeals Council's denial of review. (See id. at 1-3, 8-23.)
Miller commenced the present action by filing his Complaint on February 29, 2012 wherein he sought review of the Commissioner's determination. (See generally Compl.) The Commissioner filed an answer and a certified copy of the administrative transcript. (See Dkt. Nos. 7, 9.) Each party, seeking judgment on the pleadings, filed a brief. (See Dkt. Nos. 13, 14.)
Miller contends that the Commissioner's decision is tainted by legal error and is not supported by substantial evidence. (See Dkt. No. 13 at 10-22.) Specifically, Miller claims that the ALJ: (1) rendered an inaccurate residual functional capacity (RFC); (2) improperly evaluated his credibility; (3) erred in determining at step four that he could perform his past relevant work; and (4) erred at step five. (See id.) The Commissioner counters that the appropriate legal standards were used by the ALJ and his decision is supported by substantial evidence. (See Dkt. No. 14 at 7-17.)
The court adopts the parties' undisputed factual recitations. (See Dkt. No. 13 at 2-8; Dkt. No. 14 at 1-2.)
The standard for reviewing the Commissioner's final decision under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)*fn2 is well established and will not be repeated here. For a full discussion of the standard and the five-step process by which the Commissioner evaluates whether a claimant is disabled under the Act, the court refers the parties to its previous decision in Christiana v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 1:05-CV-932, 2008 WL 759076, at *1-2 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2008).