HEATHER M. RIMMER, Plaintiff,
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Secuirty,  Defendant.
PETER W. ANTONOWICZ, ESQ., Office of Peter W. Antonowicz, Rome, NY, for the Plaintiff.
BENIL ABRAHAM, 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, District Judge.
Plaintiff Heather M. Rimmer 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 Rimmer's arguments, the court affirms the Commissioner's decision and dismisses the Complaint.
On August 6, 2009, Rimmer filed an application for SSI under the Social Security Act ("the Act"), alleging disability since July 1, 2005. ( See Tr. at 72, 118-23.) After her application was denied, ( see id. at 73-76), Rimmer requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), which was held on January 12, 2011, ( see id. at 29-71, 87). On February 25, 2011, 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 1-5, 13-28.)
Rimmer commenced the present action by filing her Complaint on May 10, 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. 8, 9.) Each party, seeking judgment on the pleadings, filed a brief. ( See Dkt. Nos. 13, 15.)
Rimmer contends that the Commissioner's decision is tainted by legal error and is not supported by substantial evidence. ( See Dkt. No. 13 at 8-17.) Specifically, Rimmer argues that the ALJ: (1) improperly evaluated the opinion evidence of record; (2) erred in determining her residual functional capacity (RFC); and (3) failed to correctly evaluate her credibility. ( 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 5-11.)
The court adopts the parties' undisputed factual recitations. ( See Dkt. No. 13 at 3-5; Dkt. No. 15 at 1.)
V. Standard of Review
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 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. ...