United States District Court, N.D. New York
PETER W. ANTONOWICZ, ESQ., Office of Peter W. Antonowicz, Rome, NY, For the Plaintiff
Sandra M. Grossfeld, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, HON. RICHARD S. HARTUNIAN, United States Attorney, Syracuse, NY, 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 District Judge.
Plaintiff Richard Reed challenges the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB), seeking judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) After reviewing the administrative record and carefully considering Reed's arguments, the court affirms the Commissioner's decision and dismisses the complaint.
On February 28, 2011, Reed filed an application for DIB under the Social Security Act ("the Act"), alleging disability since November 11, 2010. (Tr. at 66, 139-45.) After his application was denied, ( id. at 67-70), Reed requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), which was held on August 7, 2012, ( id. at 33-59, 73). On October 4, 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 1-6, 12-31.)
Reed commenced the present action by filing his complaint on January 13, 2014 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. 8, 9.) Each party, seeking judgment on the pleadings, filed a brief. (Dkt. Nos. 15, 18.)
Reed contends that the Commissioner's decision is tainted by legal error and is not supported by substantial evidence. (Dkt. No. 15 at 11-23.) Specifically, Reed claims that the ALJ: (1) erred in determining his residual functional capacity (RFC); and, (2) improperly evaluated his allegations of disabling pain and symptoms. ( 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. 18 at 6-12.)
The court incorporates the factual recitations of the parties and the ALJ. ( See generally Dkt. No. 15 at 2-8; ...