REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

MARK A. PIZZO, District Judge.

Plaintiff seeks review of an administrative decision denying her claims for period of disability, disability insurance benefits, and Supplemental Security Income. 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3).1 She raises two interrelated issues: did the administrative law judge ("ALJ") appropriately reject her pain testimony and was his exclusive reliance on the "grids" proper. After consideration, I find the Commissioner followed the regulatory scheme with substantial evidence.2

A. Background

Plaintiff, who was 46 years old at the time of her administrative hearing, has a high school education. She has no recent work history, although apparently has some relevant experience as a cashier. She says she has been disabled since October 1, 2006 (she filed for disability benefits and SSI in February 2007) due to fibromyalgia, degenerative disc disease, and an anxiety disorder. The ALJ found these impairments severe and prohibited her from performing her prior work, which he classified at the light level. Nonetheless, based on her medical record and the opinion of a state agency medical consultant, the ALJ concluded she possessed the residual functional capacity to perform a wide range of sedentary work.3 At step five of the sequential analysis the ALJ consulted the "grids" and determined the Plaintiff was not disabled (R. 14-22). 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2, Table No. 2, Rule 201.27 and Rule 201.21.4

B. Discussion

"Exclusive reliance on the grids is not appropriate either when [the] claimant is unable to perform a full range of work at a given residual level or when a claimant has nonexertional impairments that significantly limit basic work skills." Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1242 (11th Cir. 2004) (emphasis in original) (quoting Francis v. Heckler, 749 F.2d 1562, 1566 (11th Cir. 1985)). Had the ALJ credited the Plaintiff's pain and nonexertional testimony, a vocational expert would have been warranted under this standard. However, because the ALJ rejected the Plaintiff's testimony as to the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of her impairments to the extent it was inconsistent with the work level requirements for sedentary work, the appropriateness of the ALJ's decision to rely exclusively on the grids is dependent on whether he supported his rejection with substantial evidence using the correct regulatory perspective.

Notably, the ALJ explicitly listed the correct standard and evaluated the Plaintiff's nonexertional impairments against those requirements. See R. 18-19.5 And the ALJ's findings are reasonably supported by substantial evidence, as the Commissioner now argues. For example, the ALJ noted that the clinical and diagnostic tests of the Plaintiff's neck, back, and heart showed no significant abnormalities. Moreover, the Plaintiff's minimal treatment undermined her allegations of disabling impairments, as the Commissioner points out. Indeed, the record fails to show any extensive treatment relating to the Plaintiff's fibromyalgia and arthritis.6 And the Plaintiff's account of her daily activities supported his findings. Lastly, the ALJ reasonably relied on the conclusions of a state agency medical consultant (Dr. Le) who opined the Plaintiff possessed the residual functional capacity to perform the limitations of light work, a more demanding performance level than the one the ALJ applied at step five of the analysis. Since the ALJ's findings as to the Plaintiff's residual functional capacity are supported by substantial evidence, the ALJ appropriately relied upon the grids to determine the Plaintiff not disabled.

C. Conclusion

For all the above reasons and those cited by the Commissioner in support of his decision (doc. 17), it is hereby recommended that the Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed, the Commissioner's decision affirmed, and the Clerk directed to enter judgment for the Commissioner.

IT IS SO REPORTED.