ORDER AFFIRMING THE COMMISSIONER'S DECISION

JEROME T. KEARNEY, Magistrate Judge.

Tonya Michelle Romano seeks judicial review of the denial of her application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. Romano last worked as a cashier for a convenience store.2 She stopped working in 2005 due to morning sickness.3 Since then, Romano lost custody of two children due to drug use.4 Romano's drug use — primarily methamphetamine — culminated in a heart attack in May 2008.5

The following year, Romano applied for disability benefits.6 Romano based disability on congestive heart failure caused by spasms in her blood vessels.7 She identified the date of the heart attack as her onset date.8 According to Romano, she became disabled at age 33.

The Commissioner's decision.9 After considering the application, the Commissioner's ALJ determined that although Romano had severe impairments — congestive heart failure, mild anxiety, and adjustment disorder10 — Romano could do some light work.11 Because a vocational expert identified available work, the ALJ determined Roman was not disabled under the Social Security Act and denied the application.12

After the Commissioner's Appeals Council denied a request for review,13 the ALJ's decision became a final decision for judicial review.14 Romano filed this case to challenge the decision. In reviewing the decision, the court must determine whether substantial evidence supports the decision and whether the ALJ made a legal error.15

Record development. Romano challenges the ALJ's development of the record.16 She maintains the ALJ should have asked a treating physician for an opinion about her ability to work. She contends the ALJ should have developed the record about mental impairment.

The ALJ has a duty to fairly and fully develop the record as to the matters at issue.17 Although the ALJ must develop the record fairly and fully, "the burden of persuasion to prove disability and demonstrate [residual functional capacity] remains on the claimant. The ALJ does not `have to seek additional clarifying statements from a treating physician unless a crucial issue is undeveloped.'"18

The crucial issue in this case was the condition of Romano's heart. There was no reason to contact a treating physician because treatment records documented Romano's heart condition. The records show that Romano presented to the emergency room complaining about chest pain. She went into cardiac arrest and was brought back to life with a shock of a defibrillator.19 Because she continued to have irregular heart rhythms, an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) was placed in her chest.20 Medications were prescribed to suppress coronary spasms.

After the placement of the ICD, Romano did not always comply with her medication therapy. Periodically, she presented to the emergency for complaints of chest pain. Ejection fraction rates were normal.21 Chest xrays were negative.22 Lab work was unremarkable.23 These medical findings suggested no reason to contact a treating whether Romano was disabled.24

As for mental impairment, Romano did not base disability on mental impairment. She complained about short-term memory and fearing she may die.25 She identified her primary problem as climbing stairs.26 She testified that she received two months of mental health treatment for bipolar disorder in 1996, but quit because her psychiatrist's approach wasn't working.27 She thought she was better and began using drugs. She denied mental health treatment since 1996.28 Because this evidence was insufficient to alert the ALJ to the possibility of a severe mental impairment, the ALJ did not err in developing the record about mental impairment.29

Credibility. Romano complains about the ALJ's assessment of her credibility.30 She maintains the ALJ decided not to give her testimony significant weight as early as her hearing.

An ALJ has a duty to assess the claimant's credibility.31 To assess Romano's credibility, the ALJ followed the required two-step process32 and considered the required factors.33 Thus, the question before the court is whether substantial evidence34 supports the ALJ's credibility assessment.35

The ALJ relied on inconsistencies in discounting Romano's credibility; specifically, (1) inconsistency between the medical evidence and the disabling level of alleged pain, (2) inconsistency between the medical evidence and the agency documentation, and (3) contradictory explanations during the hearing. "Subjective complaints may be discounted if there are inconsistencies in the evidence as a whole."36 In this case, there were numerous inconsistencies in the evidence as a whole.

Medical evidence and allegations of disabling pain. In an August 2009 pleading, Romano alleged that spasms in her blood vessels caused her heart to stop,37 but on the same day, she went to an emergency room for chest pain and left without treatment.38 Leaving the emergency room without treatment contradicted the contemporaneous allegation of disabling chest pain. The contradiction weighed against her credibility.

Medical evidence and agency documentation. In a July 2009 disability report, Romano alleged disability based on coronary spasms,39 but in August 2009, she told an emergency room physician that she had not taken medication prescribed for coronary spasms for two months.40 "An impairment which can be controlled by treatment or medication is not considered disabling."41 Alleging disabling coronary spasms is inconsistent with medication noncompliance. The inconsistency weighed against Romano's credibility.

Hearing testimony. Romano reported in a function report that she did not drive because of seizures,42 but she testified that she didn't have a driver's license due to drug use.43 The inconsistency in Romano's explanations about why she does not drive weighed against her credibility.

The record contains other inconsistencies,44 but the representative inconsistencies provided a sufficient basis for discounting Romano's testimony. The ALJ encouraged Romano to reflect on her prior statements and to testify truthfully, but Romano continued to contradict earlier statements. The ALJ did not err in evaluating credibility.

Light work. Romano contends substantial evidence does not support the determination that she can do some light work.45 She complains particularly about the lack of a treating physician's opinion about her ability to work.

"Substantial evidence `means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.'"46 For substantial evidence to exist in this case, a reasonable mind must find evidence adequate to show Romano can do some light work. "Light work involves lifting no more than 20 pounds at a time with frequent lifting or carrying of objects weighing up to 10 pounds."47

A reasonable mind would accept Romano's treatment records and the medical consultants' opinions as adequate to show Romano could do some light work. Treatment records reflect normal ejection fraction rates with the ICD. Normal rates supported light work. Two medical consultants reviewed the treatment records and opined that Romano can do light work.48 This evidence is adequate to show Romano can do light work.

The ALJ, however, reduced light work based on Romano's complaints about walking and stair climbing,49 the presence of the ICD, and pain from occasional angina. The ALJ also reduced light work to unskilled or low semi-skilled work, involving concrete instruction and superficial contact with others. Romano complains about the ALJ's failure to explain the latter reduction,50 but the ALJ articulated the reason during the hearing. The reduction was based on Romano's education and adjustment disorder.51 There is adequate evidence to show Romano can so some light work.

Hypothetical question. Romano complains that the hypothetical question failed to include all of her impairments.52 She maintains the question should have included an inability to lift, an inability to stand for six hours, a restriction on bending and climbing, weakness, shortness of breath, fatigue, and problems with reliability, concentration, and persistence.

The omission of Romano's complaints flowed from the ALJ's evaluation of Romano's credibility. The ALJ admonished Romano about the importance of truthfulness and the role of credibility throughout the hearing, but Romano persisted in providing contradictory testimony. The ALJ properly excluded Romano's unsubstantiated complaints.

The ALJ included many other limitations in the hypothetical question.54 Those limitations captured the concrete consequences of Romano's deficiencies. Even with all of the ALJ's restrictions, the vocational expert identified available work.55 If work exists that the claimant can do, the claimant is not disabled under the Social Security Act.56

Conclusion. Substantial evidence supported the ALJ's decision denying Romano's application. The ALJ made no legal error. For these reasons, the court DENIES Romano's request for relief (docket entry # 2) and AFFIRMS the decision denying the application.

It is so ordered.