ORDER

DAVID E. PEEBLES, Chief Magistrate Judge.

Currently pending before the court in this action, in which plaintiff seeks judicial review of an adverse administrative determination by the Commissioner of Social Security, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), are cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings.1 Oral argument was heard in connection with those motions on July 25, 2016, during a telephone conference conducted on the record. At the close of argument, I issued a bench decision in which, after applying the requisite deferential review standard, I found that the Commissioner's determination resulted from the application of proper legal principles and is supported by substantial evidence, providing further detail regarding my reasoning and addressing the specific issues raised by the plaintiff in this appeal.

After due deliberation, and based upon the court's oral bench decision, which has been transcribed, is attached to this order, and is incorporated herein by reference, it is hereby

ORDERED, as follows:

1) Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED.

2) The Commissioner's determination that the plaintiff was not disabled at the relevant times, and thus is not entitled to benefits under the Social Security Act, is AFFIRMED.

3) The clerk is respectfully directed to enter judgment, based upon this determination, DISMISSING plaintiff's complaint in its entirety.

THE COURT: I have before me a request for judicial review under 42, United States Code, Section 405(g).

The background is as follows. Plaintiff was born in January of 1967. She is currently 49 years old. She was 46 years old at the time of the hearing in this matter. She's 5-foot 3-inches in height and weighs 140 pounds. Plaintiff lives alone. She is right-hand dominant. She has a high school education and one year of college.

Plaintiff has not worked since September of 2011. Prior to that time she was in various management positions at Barnes & Noble Cafe, a Starbucks and a ToysRUs. She also worked at Wendy's.

She suffers from diabetes, fibromyalgia, and a lumbar and thoracic spine condition that results in pain. Her primary care physician is Dr. Suchet Patel of Endwell Family Physicians. She has been referred to and has seen Dr. R. Ramanujan of Diabetic Care Associates for diabetes. She's also been referred to Dr. Thomas Oven and RPA Aspen D'Angelo at Regional Rheumatology for her fibromyalgia.

She has been prescribed at various times Cymbalta, Gabapentin, Zanaflex and Savella. She testified and has stated to others, including the consultative examiner Dr. Magurno, that she cooks, cleans, does laundry, watches television, reads, socializes, shops, drives, and walks her dog. As indicated, there is some conflict as to how far she walks. At one point she stated, at page 304, she walks her dog daily. At several times she testified that she walks two miles with her dog; 209, 349, 304 and 351. Although during the hearing she stated that on a good day she only walks the dog a half mile. That's at page 47.

Procedurally, the plaintiff applied for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act on October 9, 2012, alleging an onset date of September 23, 2011. The hearing was conducted by Administrative Law Judge Marie Greener on December 10, 2013. ALJ Greener issued a decision on February 10, 2014 finding that the plaintiff was not disabled at the relevant times and, therefore, ineligible for benefits. The determination became final on June 29, 2015 when the Social Security Administrative Appeals Council denied plaintiff's request for review.

In her decision ALJ Greener applied the five-step well-known sequential test for determining disability. Found that the plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since her alleged onset date. Found at step two that she suffers from several severe impairments including fibromyalgia, diabetes mellitus, and lupus type picture of systems. The ALJ concluded that none of those impairments or conditions met or medically equaled any of the listed presumptively disabling conditions. She also rejected hypothyroidism and related neuropathy as not rising to a level sufficient to establish a severe limitation under step two.

The ALJ went on to survey the evidence and concluded that notwithstanding her conditions, plaintiff retains the residual functional capacity to perform a full range of sedentary work.

At step five, after concluding that plaintiff cannot perform her past relevant work due to the exertional limitations associated with those positions, ALJ Greener concluded that applying the Medical-Vocational Guidelines with the grids, a finding at step five of no disability was required under Rules 201.28 and 201.21.

As you know, my task is extremely limited and the scope of review narrow and deferential. I must determine whether, A, correct legal principles were applied, and B, the determination is supported by substantial evidence.

Looking first at the RFC determination, I note that it is clear now in the Second Circuit at least under Poupore that it is the plaintiff's burden to establish the limitations associated with her conditions. I also note that the ALJ is afforded a fair amount of discretion to weigh conflicting evidence. And I'll note, thirdly, that a sedentary determination reveals very limited ability to perform work related functions.

In terms of concentrations and absences, RPA D'Angelo's determinations and opinions, it was correctly noted, were not controlling. She is not an acceptable medical source. The ALJ explained why RPA D'Angelo's opinions were not accepted since they were not supported by the medical evidence and also the check-the-box form was not helpful. Dr. Ramanujan's October 2013 questionnaire was also found not to be informative because it did not indicate the frequency of the impairments that were disclosed in cases of blood sugar above 200 or below 60. The ALJ concluded at page 15 that review of the logs showed that it was relatively rare that those highs and lows were met or exceeded. And I'm not able to conclude that that was not a proper assessment.

I note that when it came to hyperlipidemia, Dr. Patel noted, for example, on page 348 that the plaintiff's situation was well controlled with medication.

The bending and stooping was something that I looked at very carefully. Dr. Magurno did state that the plaintiff is under a marked limitation in bending, which would implicate stooping. But in reviewing Social Security Ruling 85-15, I conclude that that marked limitation is not inconsistent with the finding of sedentary work since SSR 85-15 states that if a person can stoop occasionally, meaning for very little, up to one third of the time in order to lift objects, the sedentary and like occupational base is virtually intact.

I also reviewed the lifting requirement and the left arm weakness that was cited by the plaintiff. There doesn't appear to be a significant amount of medical evidence of weakness. The consultative examiner noted grip strength on the right side of 5/5 and on the left 4/5. I also note that RPA D'Angelo in August of 2012 did not discern any grip strength deterioration, noting at page 243 that the plaintiff has good grip strength bilaterally and her grip strength is symmetric, even though noting the fibromyalgia diagnosis. And that also is found at 242, 243 and 354.

In terms of lifting, the marked limitation noted by Dr. Magurno would not seem to preclude the requirements of sedentary work, which involves lifting no more than 10 pounds at a time and occasionally lifting or carrying articles like docket files, ledgers and small tools. That's pursuant to 20 CFR Section 404.1567(a).

Under these circumstances I did not see anything that would erode the job base on which the grids were predicated under 85-15, and therefore resorting to the grids to carry the Commissioner's burden at step five was proper.

In sum, although I understand the arguments raised, and it was an interesting case, and if I were deciding the case de novo, I could reach a different conclusion, but that's not my role. So I grant judgment on the pleadings to defendant affirming the Commissioner's determination.

And thank you both again for an excellent presentation. Hope you have a great day.