CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff seeks judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") denying an application for Disability Income Benefits ("DIB") under Title II of the Social Security Act ("Act"). For the reasons discussed below, the court will deny plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and grant the Commissioner's cross-motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiff, born September 18, 1956, applied on June 1, 2009 for DIB, alleging disability beginning January 2, 2009. Administrative Transcript ("AT") 185. Plaintiff alleged he was unable to work due to poor vision, diabetes, kidney problems and high blood pressure. AT 206. In a decision dated May 8, 2012, the ALJ determined that plaintiff was not disabled.
AT 32-40.
Plaintiff argues that the ALJ improperly discredited his testimony.
The court reviews the Commissioner's decision to determine whether (1) it is based on proper legal standards pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and (2) substantial evidence in the record as a whole supports it.
The record as a whole must be considered,
Plaintiff contends the ALJ failed to provide legally sufficient reasons for rejecting the testimony of plaintiff. The ALJ determines whether a disability applicant is credible, and the court defers to the ALJ's discretion if the ALJ used the proper process and provided proper reasons.
In evaluating whether subjective complaints are credible, the ALJ should first consider objective medical evidence and then consider other factors.
Plaintiff testified that he could not work because of diabetes, problems with his vision and mental impairments. AT 55. With respect to his vision problems, plaintiff testified that he frequently had floaters in his eyes and had problems seeing diagrams or small print. AT 57, 74. Plaintiff further testified that he had occasional problems with gout, that he could no longer work 13 to 14 hours a day after he suffered a stroke, that he feels numbness in his left leg and hand, and has problems with psoriasis. AT 60, 65, 75. Regarding plaintiff's mental impairments, plaintiff testified that he was no longer a fun, outgoing person, did not communicate with his friends any longer, and felt he was a burden to his family since he could no longer contribute financially. AT 77, 80. He also testified that he had had problems with sleep but those problems were resolving after a change in medication. AT 78.
The ALJ accurately summarized plaintiff's testimony and extensively discussed his reasons for discrediting plaintiff's subjective complaints to the extent they were inconsistent with the assessed residual functional capacity. AT 35-38. The ALJ noted that plaintiff had only limited compliance with his treatment regimen for diabetes, including failure to maintain insulin dosages and failure to comply with diet and exercise recommendations. AT 36. The ALJ also considered plaintiff's alcohol abuse complicating the symptoms of diabetes and that when plaintiff finally stopped drinking so much, plaintiff reported feeling better, was more engaged with friends and exercised. AT 36, 628. The inconsistency between plaintiff's claim of totally disabling symptoms and his admission in the medical records that his condition improved when he stopped abusing alcohol was a factor appropriately considered by the ALJ. The ALJ also factored into the credibility analysis the control of psoriasis plaintiff was able to obtain with oral and topical medications and reflected in the residual functional capacity a limitation to simple unskilled work due to the distraction plaintiff might have from occasional psoriasis flare-ups. AT 37. Also considered by the ALJ was plaintiff's subjective complaints of loss of visual acuity, noting that the medical records indicated that plaintiff's vision appeared to have stabilized at 20/50 visual acuity bilaterally. AT 37, 659. As noted by the ALJ, plaintiff's testimony regarding difficulty seeing small objects was appropriately accommodated in the residual functional capacity limiting plaintiff to occupations that require only occasional near acuity. AT 34, 37, 94 (vocational expert testified job base would be eroded 80% due to acuity limitation).
With respect to plaintiff's mental impairment, the ALJ accurately summarized the medical records, observing that plaintiff showed improvement with a change in medication and cessation of alcohol abuse. AT 37-38, 631. The ALJ also relied on the record medical opinions in which no treating or evaluating physician found plaintiff to be disabled as being inconsistent with plaintiff's claim of totally disabling symptoms. AT 38, 330-338, 358-372, 622. Regarding plaintiff's other claims of disabling symptoms due to numbness and high blood pressure, the ALJ correctly discounted these claims as inconsistent with the findings of his treating physicians who found plaintiff's vital signs to be within normal limits with no numbness evident on examination. AT 284, 621, 738. The ALJ also noted that plaintiff's hypertension was controlled with medications and that despite plaintiff's claim of disabling gout, he reported only one gout attack to his treating physicians. AT 32, 661.
The reasons set forth by the ALJ for discrediting plaintiff's testimony are valid, clear and convincing, and supported by substantial evidence in the record. There is no basis for remand in the ALJ's credibility analysis.
For the reasons stated herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 17) is denied;
2. The Commissioner's cross-motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 18) is granted; and
3. Judgment is entered for the Commissioner.
The claimant bears the burden of proof in the first four steps of the sequential evaluation process.