The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary L. Sharpe Chief Judge
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Wanda J. Austin o/b/o R.M.B., challenges the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of Supplemental Security Income (SSI), seeking judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (See Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) After reviewing the administrative record and carefully considering the arguments, the court affirms the Commissioner's decision and dismisses the Complaint.
On April 8, 2008, Austin protectively filed an application for SSI under the Social Security Act on behalf of her daughter, a minor, alleging disability since March 1, 2007. (See Tr.*fn1 at 46, 85-88.) After the application was denied, Austin requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), which was held on March 26, 2010. (See id. at 19-45, 47-52, 60-61.) On June 8, 2010, the ALJ issued a decision denying the requested benefits, which became the Commissioner's final decision upon the Social Security Administration Appeals Council's denial of review. (See id. at 1-4, 5-18.)
Austin commenced the present action by filing a complaint on March 15, 2012, seeking review of the Commissioner's determination. (See Compl.) The Commissioner filed an answer and a certified copy of the administrative transcript. (See Dkt. Nos. 12, 14.) Each party, seeking judgment on the pleadings, filed a brief. (See Dkt. Nos. 16, 18.)
Austin avers that the Commissioner's decision is not supported by substantial evidence and was arrived at through the application of incorrect legal standards. (See Dkt. No. 16 at 10-20.) Specifically, Austin contends that the ALJ erred in: (1) developing the record; (2) assessing the credibility of Austin and R.M.B.; and (3) deciding that R.M.B.'s impairments did not functionally equal a listed impairment. (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. 18 at 8-17.)
The evidence in this case is undisputed and the court adopts the parties' factual recitations. (See id. at 2-6; Dkt. No. 16 at 2-8.)
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 of review, the court refers the parties to its previous opinion 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). Similarly, for a full discussion of the three-step analysis used by the Social Security Administration to determine whether individuals under the age of eighteen are disabled, the court refers the parties to its previous opinion in Shatraw ex rel. K.C.Y., III, v. Astrue, No. 7:11-cv-13, 2012 WL 589667, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2012).
Austin first contends that the ALJ erred by failing to properly develop the record. (See Dkt. No. 16 at 10-12.) According to Austin, the ALJ erred in failing to recontact R.M.B.'s treating physician Dr. Michael Kore and treating psychiatrist Dr. Surendra Johri to obtain functional evaluations. (See id.) The Commissioner argues, that, as the record was sufficiently developed to enable the ALJ to make a decision, the ALJ did not ...