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) and 1383(c)(3), are cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings.1 Oral argument was heard in connection with those motions on December 27, 2018, 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.

(In chambers, counsel present by telephone. Time noted: 10:53 a.m.)

THE COURT: I have before me a request for judicial review of an adverse determination by the Acting Commissioner pursuant to 42, United States Code, Sections 405(g) and 1383 (c) (3).

The background is as follows: The plaintiff was born in July of 1964. He's currently 54 years of age. He was 52 years old at the time of the hearing in this matter and 50 years old at the time of his alleged disability onset. He lives alone in Groton, New York. The plaintiff has a 6th grade education, has never achieved a GED. There's a little bit of conflict among the various pieces of evidence in the record. At the hearing, he testified that he had a 6th grade education. He told Dr. Clark that he completed the 8th grade. That's at page 319. He did say, however, he can read and write.

Plaintiff last worked in or about October of 2014. Over his work life, he had a — several landscaping positions and several positions in the area of small engine repair. He worked for several employers in both New York and Pennsylvania in those two areas.

Medically, plaintiff suffered a broken neck at C7 when he was in his 20s. That's at page 359. He did not undergo surgery, but there's evidence that there was fusion of the C6 and C7 vertebra. That's at 320. He also has lumbar back issues. X-rays taken in both July of 2015 and April 2017 revealed moderate degenerative changes. That's at 312 and 358 of the Administrative Transcript. He has had magnetic resonance imaging testing performed of his cervical spine area on two occasions, in November of 2006, that's at 335 and 336, and August of 2015, at 333 and 334, the latter of which revealed moderate to severe diffuse cervical spondylosis as described with changes most prominent at the C4-05 level. At that level, there's moderate spinal canal narrowing and mild spinal cord impingement, which has progressed slightly from the prior study. There's also a relatively prominent area of myelomalacia within the cervical cord at the C5 level, which has also progressed from the prior study.

The plaintiff also suffers from what has been described as a right shoulder issue or a right shoulder sprain with an onset of roughly July of 2015. That is indicated at 318. He also suffers from Type 2 diabetes, which is controlled by Metformin and insulin, and hypertension.

Prior to March of 2016, plaintiff treated with Dr. Peter Clark who retired. Since that time, he has been seen at the Cayuga Medical Center by Family Nurse Practitioner Jenniferleigh Clune and Dr. James Metcalf. The plaintiff smokes approximately one pack per day and has since he was 14. That's at 319 of the record.

Medically, he takes Hydrocodone, Flexeril, Metformin, insulin, Lisinopril for his hypertension. He has also taken Oxycodone in the past, Tramadol, Cyclobenzaprine, and Glimepiride.

In terms of procedural history, plaintiff applied for Title II and Title XVI benefits on May 14, 2015, claiming disability due to back pain, spinal cord issues, lost feeling in his arms and diabetes. That's at 226 and 230 of the Administrative Transcript.

In those applications, he alleged an onset date of October 2, 2014. The hearing was conducted on March 17, 2017, by Administrative Law Judge Lisa B. Martin. ALJ Martin issued a decision on August 2, 2017, finding that plaintiff was not disabled at the relevant times and therefore ineligible for the benefits for which he applied. On April 9, 2018, the Social Security Administration Appeals Council denied plaintiff's request for a review of that determination, making it a final determination of the agency.

In her decision, ALJ Martin applied the familiar five-step sequential test for determining disability. At step one, she concluded that plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since October 2, 2014.

At step two, she concluded that plaintiff suffers from severe impairments that more than minimally affect his ability to perform work functions, including lumbar spine disorder, cervical spine disorder, right shoulder disorder, diabetes, and hypertension.

At step three, she concluded that none of the conditions meet or medically equal any of the listed presumptively disabling conditions set forth in the Commissioner's regulations, specifically considering listings 1.00, 4.00, and 9.00. After surveying the record evidence, ALJ Martin concluded that plaintiff retains the residual functional capacity, or RFC, for performing a full range of light work as defined in the regulations with the exceptions that he is limited to five hours of combined standing and walking in an eight-hour day, the rest being sitting without limit. He needs a change of position opportunity as often as every 30 minutes for one to two minutes. He can do no ladders, ropes, or scaffolds, climbing, and can do only occasional postural motions, otherwise he can perform no overhead reaching tasks with the upper extremities, cannot be exposed to any dangerous work hazards (unprotected heights and exposed moving machinery), and cannot be exposed to any extreme heat, humidity, or cold conditions. He is limited to frequent, but not constant, reaching — forward reaching, handling, and fingering tasks. He's limited to detailed, but not complex, tasks not involving a fast assembly quota pace. Applying that RFC, the Administrative Law Judge concluded that plaintiff is unable to perform his past relevant work as a landscaper, small engine repair person, or a janitor.

At step five, ALJ Martin noted that if the medical vocational guidelines, or grids, were applied, Rule 202.18 would direct a finding of no disability. However, she determined that because of the various nonexertional limitations experienced by the plaintiff and the limitations beyond light work or below light work, a vocational expert should be consulted. Based on testimony of the vocational expert, she concluded that plaintiff is able to perform as an inspector and as a cashier.

As you know, my role is limited to determining whether substantial evidence supports the determination and whether it results from the application of proper legal principles. When I look at the RFC, which the third hypothetical at page 105 tracked, I find that it is supported by substantial evidence. It is true that Dr. Lorensen, in focusing on reaching, concluded that plaintiff is only capable of occasional reaching at 363. The RFC provides, of course, for no overhead reaching and frequent forward reaching. However, the opinions that — the medical record in its entirety, including the observations of both Dr. Lorensen and Dr. Richard Weiskopf and the opinions of Dr. Weiskopf support the RFC. The opinions of Dr. Lorensen do, with the exception of reaching. And as I noted, in many regards, the opinions of Family Nurse Practitioner Clune and Dr. Clark also support the RFC.

The — I find no error in failing to perform a function-by-function analysis to the extent of saying essentially plaintiff can lift no more than 20 pounds at a time with frequent lifting or carrying of objects weighing up to ten pounds, for example. The Administrative Law Judge referenced light work, which is well defined as — in 20 CFR Section 404.1567(b), for example, and it was not improper under Cichocki or otherwise to start with a full range of light work and then to carve out exceptions.

In terms of the plaintiff's arguments about the lifting versus reaching, I find that it doesn't take into account the distinctions between the ability to lift and restrictions on range of motion. Plaintiff suffers from a right shoulder sprain and clearly that has the effect of reducing up — overhead range of motion and it's not — it's not easily translatable into the ability to lift versus the ability to reach.

In terms of the vocational expert and the DOT, the — I agree that under SSR 00-4p if there is a square conflict between an RFC and a DOT concerning any particular position, it is the duty of the VE to explain and to reconcile the conflict. This is not a situation like Bevens v. Colvin, for example. There, the DOT provided — for the occupation in question provided that it required frequent overhead reaching. The RFC, however, limited the plaintiff to occasional reaching overhead, which was a square conflict. The same holds true of the decision of our Chief Judge, Judge Suddaby, in Carbee v. Commissioner of Social Security. In that case, similarly there was a square conflict.

Here, there is no clear conflict. The DOT entries that deal with Cashier II, that's 211.462-010, and with the processing — the second position, that's 559.687-074, inspector and hand packager, both specify that they require frequent reaching. They do not, however, distinguish between overhead reaching and reaching in other directions such as forward. So it's not a conflict, it's an ambiguity.

The vocational expert testified, based upon experience and education, that those positions did not require overhead reaching, that's at page 107 of the Administrative Transcript, and otherwise, the reaching requirements of those DOT entries are met by plaintiff's RFC in terms of allowing for frequent reaching in other directions.

The last argument raised was that the plaintiff should have been considered to be — fall in the sedentary category, in which case the grids would direct a finding of no disability. Clearly, he falls somewhere between the full range of light work and sedentary work and it was certainly appropriate under the relevant Social Security rulings and indeed required to obtain vocational expert testimony to determine at step five if there were jobs capable of being performed by the plaintiff, so I find no error there.

In sum, I grant — I find that the determination was supported by substantial evidence and I will grant judgment on the pleadings to the defendant. Thank you both for excellent presentations. I hope you have a happy holiday season and new year.

CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER

I, HANNAH F. CAVANAUGH, RPR, Official Court Reporter, in and for the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that pursuant to Section 753, Title 28, United States Code, that the foregoing is a true and correct transcript of the stenographically reported proceedings held in the asbove-entitled matter and that the transcript page format is in conformance with the regulations of the Judicial Conference of the United States.