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 Acting Commissioner of Social Security, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §' 405(g), 1383(c)(3), are cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings.1 Oral argument was heard in connection with those motions on August 22, 2017, 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 Acting 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 Acting 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: Thank you. I have before me an application for judicial review of an adverse determination by the Acting Commissioner pursuant to 42, United States Code, Section 405(g) and 1383(c)(3). The background is as follows.

The plaintiff was born in September of 1960. He is currently 56, almost 57 years old. He was 54 years old at the time of the hearing in this matter, and 52 when he filed his application for benefits. He is ambidextrous but left-handed, describes himself as left-handed. He is separated and lives with his mother.

The evidence is somewhat equivocal regarding his level of education. He graduated from college — I'm sorry, high school. At his hearing he testified that he took some college courses; however, when he was examined by Dr. Hartman, he indicated that he had five years of college education and had achieved a doctorate in theology. That is at page 257 of the Administrative Transcript. He claims to be a certified electrician. He has a driver's license.

In the past he has worked as a newspaper carrier, a groundskeeper, a greenskeeper, and a yardman on a railroad. He also cuts lawns and was doing that at the time of the hearing.

He suffers from multiple physical limitations, including asthma, low vision, and he has undergone cataract surgery in both eyes. He underwent left cataract surgery in December 2014 and right cataract surgery in January 2015. He suffers from lumbar and cervical degenerative disc disease, arthritis, anxiety, mild obesity, and diabetes, which is controlled.

For his physical ailments his medications are limited primarily to Ibuprofen, Flexeril and Tylenol.

Mentally, according to Dr. Hartman, he suffers from major depressive disorder moderate, and anxiety disorder, although he has not undergone any significant mental health treatment.

In terms of daily activities, he watches television, cooks, cleans, does laundry, can do some shopping, takes care of his personal hygiene. He has one friend and he socializes with some family members. He can go out alone. He smokes a half a pack of cigarettes a day and occasionally marijuana.

Plaintiff applied for Supplemental Security Income benefits on February 8, 2013, alleging an onset disability date of January 1, 2009. A hearing was conducted on October 21, 2014 and continued on March 11, 2015 in order to obtain the testimony of a vocational expert.

The hearing was conducted by Administrative Law Judge Dale Black-Pennington. ALJ Black-Pennington issued a decision on May 20, 2015 finding that the plaintiff was not disabled at the relevant times and, therefore, ineligible for the benefits sought. That became a final determination of the Agency on September 26, 2016 when the Social Security Administration Appeals Council denied plaintiff's application for review.

In her decision Judge Black-Pennington applied the five-step sequential test for determining disability.

At step one concluded that although plaintiff testified that he mows lawns, he was not engaged in substantial gainful activity and had not been since February 8, 2013.

At step two she concluded that the plaintiff suffers from asthma, low vision, lumbar and cervical degenerative disc disease, arthritis, anxiety, and cannabis abuse, and rejected certain other alleged impairments as not being sufficiently severe at step two to meet the test.

At step three she concluded that plaintiff's conditions did not meet or medically equal any of the listed presumptively disabling conditions set forth in the Commissioner's regulations. She considered listings 1.04, 2.02, 2.04, 3.03, 12.06 and 12.09.

After surveying the medical evidence, ALJ Black-Pennington concluded that plaintiff retains the residual functional capacity, or RFC, to perform light work except that he is able to make simple work related decisions and have superficial and transactional contact with co-workers and the general public. The claimant is able to occasionally manage change to the workplace environment or tasks. He should avoid heavy machinery, unprotected heights, vibrations and/or driving and motorized vehicles. The claimant should avoid known respiratory irritants and requires the use of reading glasses.

Applying that residual functional capacity, the ALJ Black-Pennington concluded that plaintiff was not capable of performing any of his past relevant work.

She then proceeded to step five and noted that if the Medical-Vocational guidelines set forth in the regulations, or the Grids, were applied, a finding of no disability would be dictated by Rule 202.13. She concluded, however, that plaintiff's inability to perform a full range of light work impaired the job base on which the Grids were located, requiring the testimony of a vocational expert.

After hearing that testimony, she concluded that plaintiff retained the RFC to perform as a photocopy machine operator, a cashier II, and a mail clerk, and that there were sufficient jobs in the national economy to support a finding of no disability.

As you know, my task is limited. The scope of review that I must apply is deferential. I must determine whether correct legal principles were applied by the ALJ and the determination is supported by substantial evidence.

I agree with the Commissioner, I don't find that the RFC is at odds with the opinions of Dr. Hartman and the record as a whole. The three occupations identified in step five require minimum contact with supervisors, in any event.

L. Hoffman, I agree the opinion may be somewhat contradictory, but it was for the ALJ to determine how to rank the opinion of Dr. Hartman and L. Hoffman, and she did indicate in her opinion that she gave, while she gave great weight at the outset at page 29 to L. Hoffman, she gave little weight, at page 33, to the limitation about ability to respond to criticisms from supervisors and accept instructions, and that was his prerogative and well explained.

So I note also that it is plaintiff's burden to establish his limitations through the RFC stage, and I don't find that that burden was carried.

With regard to credibility, I've reviewed carefully SSR 96-7p on the Administrative Law Judge's credibility determination. While the plaintiff was not insured from July of 2013 to October of 2014, there is no indication that he didn't avail himself of — couldn't avail himself of free or low cost medical care. In any event, if you look globally at his records, including the time that he was insured, he had extremely modest treatment, did not request any kind of narcotic prescriptions, pain medication or modality, was not referred to a pain specialist.

The record suggests that he attended an initial session of physical therapy and it was indicated that he was going to continue physical therapy, but there is no records to show that he did, in fact, continue on with the physical therapy.

Again, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish disability, and the ALJ properly considered the record as a whole, including plaintiff's daily activities, and concluded that his claims concerning his limitations were not entirely credible.

So I find that the Commissioner's determination is supported by substantial evidence and I will grant judgment on the pleadings to the defendant, affirm the Commissioner's finding, and dismiss plaintiff's complaint.

Thank you both for excellent presentations.