ORDER

BETH DEERE, Magistrate Judge.

Oral argument hearing was held on June 11, 2015. Following a review of the record and arguments presented by counsel, the Court announced its findings of fact and conclusions of law, affirming the Commissioner's decision. Based on the record as a whole, there was sufficient evidence to support the decision that Ms. Hogan was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act as of the time of the hearing before the Administrative Law Judge. An excerpted transcript with detailed findings and conclusions is attached.

Accordingly, the decision of the Commissioner is affirmed, and the case is hereby dismissed, with prejudice.

So ordered.

ELECTRONIC COURT RECORDER-OPERATOR: Ms. Suzy Flippen

PROCEEDINGS RECORDED BY ELECTRONIC SOUND RECORDING.

TRANSCRIPT PRODUCED BY TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE.

PROCEEDINGS

(Call to order of the Court.)

THE COURT: All right. Then I'm ready to rule in this case unless there is something I have — anybody wants to add.

So, these are my findings and conclusions. First, jurisdiction is proper. There is no dispute, all the procedural prerequisites have been satisfied. The parties have consented to my jurisdiction, so it's appropriate for me to rule.

I have reviewed the parties' briefs, the ALJ's decision, all of those portions of the record the parties have cited, in addition to other parts of the record that I've reviewed, including the entire transcript of the hearing before the ALJ.

Standard of review is well settled; is there sufficient evidence, considering the record as a whole, to support the Commissioner's decision, and second, is there any legal error?

Ms. Hogan is appealing the Commissioner's finding that she was not disabled. And because the Appeal's Counsel denied her request for review, the ALJ's April 15, 2013 decision is deemed the Commissioner's final decision.

She applied for disability benefits on October 14, 2011; first, alleging an onset date of January 1, 2001-2007 — excuse me — but later amending the onset date to October 14, 2011.

The ALJ followed the five-step analysis that ALJ's use in every case. He did find that Ms. Hogan had severe impairments; carpel tunnel syndrome of the upper left extremity, joint pain, lumbago, tremors, depression, anxiety disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, and polysubstance abuse in remission.

Based on these impairments, as well as non-severe impairments, the ALJ found that Ms. Hogan could perform a reduced range of light work. To accommodate her physical impairments, the ALJ limited her to jobs that would require no-more than frequent reaching and handling with her left non-dominant hand and wrist. In addition, she would not be able to climb ladders or scaffolds and could not be exposed to unrestricted heights.

To accommodate her mental impairments, the ALJ limited Ms. Hogan to performing simple unskilled or rote activities and to understanding, following, and remembering concrete instructions. He further limited her to jobs requiring only limited contact with the public, superficial contact with coworkers and supervisors.

Ms. Hogan had no past relevant work, but a Vocational Expert identified jobs that are available in sufficient numbers that a person with Ms. Hogan's limitations could perform.

Ms. Hogan raises several points on appeal. She challenges the ALJ's Residual Functional Capacity determination. Her appeal focused primarily — focuses primarily on her mental impairments. And there's not a — I'm going to say there's not a serious argument that the ALJ erred with respect to her physical limitations. Although she raises some of those in her argument today, they're not seriously challenged in her brief. And I'm — to me, it's clear that the limitations set out by the ALJ adequately accommodate her physical limitations; that is, her carpel tunnel syndrome and her tremors, as well as her joint pain, lumbago. She's — she's limited to a reduced range of light work according to the ALJ.

So, turning to her mental impairments, she makes three general arguments. First, that the ALJ did not adequately consider all of the medical opinions of the consulting psychologist, Mary Ellen Zeoco, who is a Ph.D. psychologist. Dr. Zeoco examined Ms. Hogan on December 20th, 2011. That part of her opinion that the ALJ should have considered, according to Ms. Hogan, are her opinions that Ms. Hogan, and I'm quoting here:

End quote. That she, quote:

End quote. And also that she, quote:

End quote.

Again, Ms. Hogan argues that the ALJ should have given more weight to not only these opinions, but also to the Global Assessment Functioning score, or sometimes we shorthand that to GAF, the GAF Score of 45, which is — is extremely low.

Her second general argument is that the ALJ's credibility determination was flawed. And in support of that, she cites her long history of treatment and prescription medications. She argues that the ALJ put too much reliance on the state agency doctor, who did not examine Ms. Hogan, and that would be Dr. Kevin Santulli, who is also a Ph.D. psychologist.

And her third general argument is that the ALJ should have more fully developed the record if he found that Dr. Zeoco's report was vague and ambiguous.

I do find that substantial evidence supports the ALJ's decision. His — first of all, his observation that Dr. Zeoco's opinions were based heavily on Ms. Hogan's subjective complaints is accurate. A large part of her report repeats the history that Ms. Hogan herself gives. And I would point out that Dr. Zeoco's opinion was reviewed by another psychologist, as I've said, Dr. Kevin Santulli. So he had the benefit of Dr. Zeoco's report when he fashioned his opinion.

I do think it's important to note that Dr. Zeoco also noted that Ms. Hogan's activities of daily living, that included she drives, she has a driver's license, she completes activities of daily living without assistance, except that her 15 year old apparently helps her put on makeup because of her tremors. She communicates in a socially adequate manner, communicates in an effective and intelligible manner. She's able to cope with the typical cognitive demands of basic work-like activities, manages her own funds. Her thought process is logical, relevant, goal orient — goal directed. She lives with her mother and three of her five children, since separating from what sounds like her no-account husband.

So, I think that there was no necessity for the ALJ to ask Dr. Zeoco to clarify her opinion. The opinion about possible problems were so speculative, including words like "They might sometimes; she might sometimes have some difficulty." That's really not enough to support a finding that she would have those problems.

Ms. Hogan herself testified at the hearing about her activities of daily living and testified that she helps get her children ready for school, she does laundry, picks up around the house, cooks some, helps her children with their homework, and puts them to bed after they have bathed and gotten ready for bed.

The ALJ was not required to adopt every part of the opinion of this consulting doctor, psychologist, who saw her only once. And he certainly was not required to give controlling weight to that one GAF score of 45. The current DSM, which is DSM-5, has eliminate — has eliminated the use of GAF scores, in part, because of their, quote:

Moreover, the Social Security regs make it clear that GAF scores are not dispositive.

The ALJ also properly took into account inconsistencies in Ms. Hogan's testimony. You know, in spite of her testimony about these disabling tremors, the ALJ observed no tremors at the time of the hearing. And at the time of the hearing, she had not been to see her primary care doctor for approximately five months. And there's no record of her ever seeking treatment for her mental health problems except her visits to her primary care physician.

Other inconsistencies are in the record. She refers to lupus causing memory problems, but there's no diagnosis of lupus that I found anywhere in the record.

The ALJ also properly noted her poor work history, although I don't put a lot of — a lot of weight on that, she is 32 years old and had five children, she didn't have much opportunity to find work. So, I'm not particularly dwelling on that, although that is something that ALJs can properly consider. And again, her lack of mental health treatment.

So, because of all of this, I think that the ALJ adequately accommodated all of her mental impairments that are fairly supported by the record.

So, I find no legal error. And for the reasons we've just discussed, I find there's substantial evidence to support the decision here that Ms. Hogan was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act as of the time of the hearing. Although there is certainly evidence on the other side, I don't find that this is really a very close case. There is ample evidence here to support the decision.

So, we will have a transcript of the findings and conclusions prepared. And that will be attached to an order. That will take a couple of weeks or so.

I do want to thank the lawyers. Professor Wallace always makes an excellent argument and makes the most out of the record. There just was not much of a record in this case to — that he could work with in this case. Also, thanks to Ms. Reese from the Social Security Administration. You did a very good job, as well.

(Adjournment at 10:36 a.m.)

ELECTRONIC SOUND RECORDING CERTIFICATION:

I, court approved transcriber, certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the official electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the above-entitled matter.