DONNA M. COMITO, Plaintiff,
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
PETER W. ANTONOWICZ, ESQ. Office of Peter W. Antonowicz Rome, NY, for the Plaintiff.
DENNIS J. CANNING Special Assistant U.S. Attorney HON. RICHARD S. HARTUNIAN United States Attorney Syracuse, NY, for the Defendant.
Steven P. Conte Regional Chief Counsel Social Security Administration Office of General Counsel, Region II New York, NY.
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
GARY L. SHARPE, Chief Judge.
Plaintiff Donna M. Comito 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 Comito's arguments, the court affirms the Commissioner's decision and dismisses the Complaint.
On August 4, 2009, Comito filed an application for SSI under the Social Security Act ("the Act"), alleging disability since May 8, 2009. ( See Tr. at 71, 107-09.) After her application was denied, ( see id. at 72-75), Comito requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), which was held on July 13, 2010, ( see id. at 44-70, 76). On December 14, 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 1-6, 18-32.)
Comito commenced the present action by filing her Complaint on January 5, 2012 wherein she 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. 9, 10.) Each party, seeking judgment on the pleadings, filed a brief. ( See Dkt. Nos. 14, 15.)
Comito contends that the Commissioner's decision was the product of legal error and is unsupported by substantial evidence. ( See Dkt. No. 14 at 8-21.) Specifically, Comito claims that: (1) the residual functional capacity (RFC) determination is infirm; (2) the Commissioner improperly evaluated whether her condition met listing 14.02; and (3) her credibility was improperly assessed. ( See id. ) The Commissioner counters that the appropriate legal standards were used by the ALJ and his decision is also supported by substantial evidence. ( See Dkt. No. 15 at 13-24.)
The court adopts the parties' undisputed factual recitations. ( See Dkt. No. 14 at ...