HOWARD D. OLINSKY, ESQ., Olinsky Law Group, Syracuse, NY, for the Plaintiff.
TOMASINA DIGRIGOLI, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, HON. RICHARD S. HARTUNIAN United States Attorney, Syracuse, NY, Steven P. Conte, Regional Chief Counsel Social Security Administration Office of General Counsel, Region II, New York, NY, for the Defendant.
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
GARY L. SHARPE, Chief District Judge.
Plaintiff William Duane Stivers challenges the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI), seeking 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 Stivers' arguments, the court affirms the Commissioner's decision and dismisses the Complaint.
On May 9 and May 22, 2008, Stivers filed applications for DIB and
SSI, respectively, under the Social Security Act ("the Act"), alleging disability since November 1, 2005. ( See Tr. at 60-61, 132-44.) After his applications were denied, ( see id. at 63-70), Stivers requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), which was held on December 18, 2009, ( see id. at 34-58, 75). On January 11, 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 1-24.)
Stivers commenced the present action by filing his Complaint on August 25, 2011 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. 8, 10.) Each party, seeking judgment on the pleadings, filed a brief. ( See Dkt. Nos. 13, 14.)
Stivers contends that the Commissioner's decision is tainted by legal error and is not supported by substantial evidence. ( See Dkt. No. 13 at 7-19.) Specifically, Stivers claims that the: (1) ALJ failed to properly develop the record; (2) residual functional capacity (RFC) determination is unsupported by substantial evidence and the product of legal error; (3) ALJ improperly assessed his credibility; and (4) step five determination is unsupported by substantial evidence ( See id. ) The Commissioner counters that the appropriate legal standards were used by the ALJ and her decision is also supported by substantial evidence. ( See Dkt. No. 14 at 11-22.)
The court adopts the parties' undisputed factual recitations. ( See Dkt. No. 13 at ...