United States District Court, N.D. New York
HOWARD D. OLINSKY, ESQ., Olinsky Law Group, Syracuse, NY, for the Plaintiff.
SANDRA M. GROSSFELD, 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 Terumi Omori challenges the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of Child's Insurance Benefits (CIB) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI), seeking judicial review under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3). (Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) After reviewing the administrative record and carefully considering Omori's arguments, the court affirms the Commissioner's decision and dismisses the complaint.
On November 12, 2010, Omori filed applications for CIB and SSI under the Social Security Act ("the Act"), alleging disability since January, 3, 1988. (Tr. at 63-64, 141-53.) After his applications were denied, ( id. at 66-77), Omori requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), which was held on June 1, 2012, ( id. at 29-62, 91-94). On June 15, 2012, 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. ( Id. at 1-5, 29-62.)
Omori commenced the present action by filing his complaint on October 11, 2013 wherein he sought review of the Commissioner's determination. (Compl.) The Commissioner filed an answer and a certified copy of the administrative transcript. (Dkt. Nos. 7, 8.) Each party, seeking judgment on the pleadings, filed a brief. (Dkt. Nos. 10, 13.)
Omori contends that the Commissioner's decision is tainted by legal error and is not supported by substantial evidence. (Dkt. No. 10 at 15-25.) Specifically, Omori claims that the ALJ erred in: (1) weighing the medical opinions of record; (2) evaluating his credibility; and (3) posing an incomplete hypothetical to the vocational expert (VE) at step five of the sequential evaluation. ( Id. ) The Commissioner counters that the appropriate legal standards were used by the ALJ and her decision is also supported by substantial evidence. (Dkt. No. 13 at 7-14.)
The court adopts the parties' undisputed factual recitations. (Dkt. No. 10 at ...