ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD, District Judge.
Represented by counsel, Plaintiff Darquin L. Phelps ("Plaintiff") brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking review of the final decision of Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security ("the Commissioner"),
On June 17, 2009, an application for SSI was protectively filed on behalf of Plaintiff, who was then a child under the age of 18. (Administrative Transcript (hereinafter "Tr.") at 152-54). In his application, Plaintiff alleged disability due to hearing loss in his left ear, with a disability onset date of August 1, 2003. (Tr. 152, 189). On December 1, 2009, the Commissioner denied Plaintiff's application. (Tr. 80). Plaintiff timely filed a request for a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"). On May 10, 2011, Plaintiff, represented by counsel, and his mother, Cassandra Lenore Matthews ("Ms. Matthews"), appeared and testified at a video hearing before ALJ Jennifer Whang. (Tr. 53-79). Vocational Expert ("VE") Arthur M. Brown also appeared and testified. (Id.).
On May 23, 2011, ALJ Whang issued a decision finding that Plaintiff was not disabled. (Tr. 85-99). On October 3, 2012, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review, making the ALJ's decision the final decision of the Commissioner. (Tr. 7-9). Plaintiff commenced this civil action appealing the final decision of the Commissioner on January 15, 2013. (Dkt. 1).
At the May 10, 2011 hearing, Plaintiff testified that he was 18 years old and he was in eleventh grade regular education classes, but he did receive after-school help. (Tr. 72). Plaintiff stated that he had trouble hearing with his left ear, but his hearing was good in his right ear. (Id.). Plaintiff testified that he enjoyed listening to music and had friends in the neighborhood. (Tr. 74). However, Plaintiff said he did not have friends in school because they had graduated. (Tr. 73). He had a driver's license and planned to go to trade school after graduation. (Tr. 74). According to Plaintiff, he had worked as a landscaper and cleaner the summer before the hearing, and also held a volunteer position supervising children at the local recreation center. (Tr. 72-73). Plaintiff testified that he left those positions when the school year started again. (Tr. 73).
Plaintiff's mother, Ms. Matthews, testified that Plaintiff lived with her and two of his siblings. (Tr. 60-61). According to Ms. Matthews, Plaintiff's multiple ear infections as a child caused hearing difficulties that caused Plaintiff to use a FM system for hearing amplification beginning when he was an elementary student and continuing until he was in ninth grade. (Tr. 62-64). Ms. Matthews said the school stopped providing the systems after Plaintiff destroyed three or four of them. (Tr. 67).
Ms. Matthews testified that Plaintiff has "a lot of behavioral issues" and was "constantly suspended." (Tr. 64). Ms. Matthews also testified that Plaintiff experienced anxiety and fits of "destructiveness" at home and at school. (Id.). Ms. Matthews stated that Plaintiff has received counseling for anger management. (Tr.
VE Brown testified that a hypothetical individual with Plaintiff's age, education, and experience who has no exertional limitations should avoid concentrated exposure to noise and would be limited to jobs that do not require fine hearing capacity. (Tr. 77). The VE further noted that a person with these limitations would be able to perform jobs that exist in the national economy, including industrial cleaner, production laborer, and sorter. (Tr. 77-78). According to VE Brown, these positions require light to medium levels of exertion. (Tr. 78).
The Court assumes the parties' familiarity with the medical record, which is summarized below.
On October 6, 1997, licensed audiologist Patricia Wissman tested Plaintiff's hearing capabilities. (Tr. 242). Testing indicated "moderately severe hearing loss in the high frequencies" in Plaintiff's left ear. (Id.). Ms. Wissman recommended "preferential classroom seating in close proximity to the teacher/speaker and in clear view of all available visual cues." (Id.).
Licensed audiologist Robin Parsons evaluated Plaintiff on March 24, 2004. Testing indicated poor word recognition in the left ear at "slightly elevated speaking levels." (Tr. 244). Ms. Parsons found "[w]ith hearing loss of this degree and nature [Plaintiff] can be expected to have difficulty hearing in some listening situations, especially in the presence of competing background noise." (Id.). Additionally, she found Plaintiff will "have difficulty localizing the sound source." (Id.).
One June 14, 2006, treatment note from Westside Health Services indicated that Plaintiff may have Attention Deficit Disorder ("ADD"), and set a plan to refer Plaintiff to a psychologist to discuss a Ritalin prescription. (Tr. 256).
A May 17, 2007, treatment note from Westside Health Services showed that Plaintiff was assessed as a healthy 14-year old. (Tr. 258). Evaluations showed normal hearing in the right ear and mild hearing loss in the left ear. (Tr. 257).
On July 29, 2009, Ms. Wissman noted Plaintiff's academic reports were "generally unfavorable in terms of grades and behavior," and that Plaintiff's father stated Plaintiff would be getting a medical evaluation for his "fidgety behavior." (Tr. 234). Testing showed "moderately severe hearing loss levels across high frequencies of the left ear." (Id.). Plaintiff's "ability to hear single-syllable words clearly at a comfortable listening level" was found to be "poor to good." (Id.). Ms. Wissman opined that Plaintiff "can be expected to have difficulty hearing in certain listening situations." (Id.). She recommended that Plaintiff have preferential classroom seating and that his teachers provide visual cues such as gestures and the use of pictures. (Tr.235).
Speech and language pathologist Miriah Brunetto examined Plaintiff on October 14, 2009. (Tr. 217). Testing revealed "moderate to severe receptive and expressive language delay." (Tr. 218). Plaintiff showed delays in several areas of language skills. (Tr. 217). Ms. Brunetto said that
On November 24, 2009, J. Weir, a consultative speech and language pathologist, found that Plaintiff had a marked impairment in acquiring and using information; no limitation in attending and completing tasks; a less than marked limitation in interacting and relating with others; no limitation in moving about and manipulating objects; no limitation in caring for himself; and a less than marked limitation in health and physical well-being. (Tr. 229-31).
On December 1, 2009, R. Gauthier, a medical internist consultant, found that Plaintiff had a marked limitation in acquiring and using information and a less than marked limitation in interacting and relating with others and/or health and physical well-being. (Tr. 228-31).
On October 4, 2010, licensed audiologist Sheryl Reid evaluated Plaintiff's hearing loss. (Tr. 195). Testing showed a "relatively unchanged mild to moderately severe loss in the left ear." (Id.). Word recognition was "fair in [Plaintiff's] better right ear and poor in the left ear." (Id.). Ms. Reid stated that "[w]ith hearing loss of this degree and nature, [Plaintiff] can `hear' but will have difficulty understanding in certain situations, such as hearing faint or distant speech" and will have difficulty localizing sounds and voices. (Id.). Ms. Reid recommended that Plaintiff secure seating close to the teacher and use hearing protection whenever noise exposure might occur. (Id.).
"Under the Social Security Act, an individual under the age of 18 is entitled to SSI benefits when he or she has a medically determinable physical or mental impairment which results in marked and severe functional limitations and which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months." Hart v. Colvin, No. 12-CV-1043-JTC, 2014 WL 916747, at *3 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2014) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(C)(i)). In considering a child's application for Social Security Disability benefits, the Commissioner uses a three-step evaluation process to determine whether a child is disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.924(a)-(d). First, the ALJ determines whether the child is engaged in any substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. § 416.924(b). Second, if the child is not engaged in any substantial gainful activity, the ALJ determines whether the child has a medically severe impairment or combination of impairments that cause "more than a minimal functional limitation." 20 C.F.R. § 416.924(c). Third, the ALJ determines whether the child's severe impairment(s) meets, medically equals, or functionally equals the criteria of any listed impairment in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 ("Listing of Impairments"). If the child's impairment(s) medically meets or equals a listed impairment, the child will be found disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.926(d)(1).
In the instant case, in applying the three-step evaluation process, the ALJ made the following determinations. At the first step, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff was a minor at the time the application was filed and that he had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the application date. (Tr. 89-90). At the second step, the ALJ found that Plaintiff suffered from the severe impairments of hearing loss in the left ear and speech and language delay. (Tr. 90). At the third step, the ALJ determined that these impairments did not meet or functionally equal the listings of impairments. (Id.).
The ALJ then assessed the functional limitations caused by Plaintiff's impairments and determined that, before turning 18, Phelps had a marked limitation in the domain of acquiring and using information; no limitation in attending and completing tasks; a less than marked limitation in interacting and relating with others; no limitation in moving about and manipulating objects; no limitation in the ability to care for himself; and a less than marked limitation in health and physical well-being. (Tr. 90-96). As a result of these findings, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff was not disabled.
The Social Security Act provides that a claimant applying for SSI will be deemed to be disabled "if he is unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which ... has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than twelve months." 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(A); see Rembert v. Colvin, No. 13-CV-638A, 2014 WL 950141, at *6 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2014). A disabling impairment is defined as "an impairment that results from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities which are demonstrable by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostics techniques." 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(3), 1382c(a)(3)(D). The burden is on the claimant to demonstrate that he is disabled within the meaning of the Act. See Draegert v. Barnhart, 311 F.3d 468, 472 (2d Cir.2002). The individual will only be declared disabled if his impairment is of such severity that he is unable to do his previous work and cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful activity. 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(2)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(B).
In making the disability determination, the ALJ follows a five-step sequential analysis. If the ALJ makes a determination at any step, the evaluation will not
Shaw v. Chater, 221 F.3d 126, 132 (2d Cir.2000); see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920.
In applying the five-step sequential analysis, the ALJ made the following determinations. At the first step, the ALJ found that Plaintiff was not currently engaged in substantial gainful activity. (Tr. 89). At the second step, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had not developed any new severe impairment. (Tr. 99). At the third step, the ALJ reiterated that Plaintiff did not have a listed impairment that would render him disabled. (Tr. 97). At the fourth step, the ALJ determined that, since turning 18, Plaintiff had the residual functional capacity ("RFC") to perform "a full range of work at all exertional levels but with the following nonexertional limitations: claimant must avoid all concentrated exposure to extreme noise; and he is limited to jobs that do not require fine hearing capability." (Tr. 97). Because Plaintiff had no past relevant work, the ALJ moved on to step five. (Tr. 98). At the fifth step, considering Plaintiff's RFC, age, education, and work experience, as well as the testimony of the VE, the ALJ further found that, as an adult, "the claimant is capable of making a successful adjustment to other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy." (Tr. 99). The ALJ adopted the VE's opinion testimony that Plaintiff was able to perform jobs that exist in the national economy, including industrial cleaner, production laborer, and sorter. (Id.). Based on these findings, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff was not disabled. (Id.).
This Court has jurisdiction to review the final decision of the Commissioner under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3). "In reviewing a decision of the Commissioner, the Court may `enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner... with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing.'" Emerson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 12 Civ. 6451(PAC)(SN), 2014 WL 1265918, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2014) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)). Title 42
Therefore, the scope of the Court's review is limited to determining whether the Commissioner applied the appropriate legal standards in evaluating Plaintiff's claim, and whether the Commissioner's findings were supported by substantial evidence in the record. See Mongeur v. Heckler, 722 F.2d 1033, 1038 (2d Cir.1983) (stating that a reviewing Court does not examine a benefits case de novo). If the Court finds no legal error, and that there is substantial evidence for the Commissioner's determination, the decision must be upheld, even if there is also substantial evidence for the plaintiff's position. See Perez v. Chater, 77 F.3d 41, 46 (2d Cir. 1996).
Judgment on the pleadings may be granted under Rule 12(c) where the material facts are undisputed and where judgment on the merits is possible merely by considering the contents of the pleadings. Sellers v. M.C. Floor Crafters, Inc., 842 F.2d 639, 642 (2d Cir.1988).
"Although the claimant has the general burden of proving that he or she has a disability within the meaning of the Act, because a hearing on disability benefits is a non-adversarial proceeding, the ALJ generally has an affirmative obligation to develop the administrative record." Ubiles v. Astrue, No. 11-CV-6340T(MAT), 2012 WL 2572772, at *7 (W.D.N.Y. July 2, 2012) (internal quotations omitted). This duty to develop the record exists even when the claimant is represented by counsel. Perez, 77 F.3d at 47. Where there is reason to believe that additional information is necessary to reach a decision, the ALJ is required to develop a complete medical history of the claimant for at least a twelve month period prior to the application date. Tejada v. Apfel, 167 F.3d 770, 774 (2d Cir.1999).
Plaintiff contends the ALJ failed to develop the record because she did not order a psychiatric consultative examination in light of Ms. Matthew's testimony that Plaintiff may have ADD or ADHD, (Tr. 66-68), as well as a treatment note dated June 14, 2006, which indicated that Plaintiff may have ADD and set a plan to refer Plaintiff to a psychologist to discuss a Ritalin prescription (Tr. 256). (Dkt. 8 at 8).
The ALJ has discretion on a case-by-case basis to determine whether a consultative examination is needed, and is only required to order such an examination where the examination is necessary to resolve a conflict or ambiguity in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1519a(b)(4); see Simon v. Colvin, No. 6:12-CV-6381 MAT, 2013 WL 4094612, at *6-7 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2013) (finding no psychiatric consultative evaluation needed where substantial evidence in the record to support ALJ's conclusion); Battaglia v. Astrue, No. 11 Civ. 02045,
In this case, a consultative examination was not necessary for the ALJ to reach a decision. Plaintiff's alleged treatment for ADD was only cited once in a treatment note dated June 14, 2006. (Tr. 256). The note recommends that Plaintiff follow up with a psychologist, but there is no evidence in the record to suggest that Plaintiff received any treatment for ADD during the remaining relevant application period. Although there are references to Plaintiff's disruptive behavior (see Tr. 64-65; 91; 94; 215; 256), there are no records after a single note in 2006 to indicate that Plaintiff was diagnosed with ADD or receiving treatment for the condition. Plaintiff contends that Ms. Matthews' comments that Plaintiff may have ADHD within the relevant time period created an ambiguity sufficient to require a psychiatric consultative examination. However, "[a] parent's testimony alone is not enough to establish a physical or mental impairment." Agee ex rel. M.P.W. v. Astrue, No. 12-cv-0657, 2013 WL 6384595, *11 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 6, 2013) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 416.928(a)).
In fact, there is substantial evidence in the record to demonstrate that Plaintiff was functioning well. During medical examinations, Plaintiff had a positive affect and provided thoughtful responses to conversation. (Tr. 215-19). Ms. Brunetto opined that Plaintiff had a good prognosis, despite a moderate to severe expressive language delay. (Tr. 91, 215-19). Plaintiff was in regular education classes. (Tr. 215). Plaintiff testified that he enjoyed listening to music, was able to drive, and enjoyed spending time with friends in the neighborhood. (Tr. 73-74). Plaintiff was able to perform two summer jobs and do volunteer work. (Tr. 63, 73). Further, treatment notes in the record from May 17, 2007, and July 15, 2008, assessed Plaintiff as healthy with "normal growth and development." (Tr. 258, 260). Additionally, the Court notes that Plaintiff did not allege ADD or ADHD as a source of disability in his application for SSI, nor did Plaintiff testify to these conditions at the hearing. (See Tr. 72-74, 188, 168).
Absent any additional medical evidence to demonstrate that Plaintiff was undergoing treatment for an attention deficit condition, and in light of the medical evidence supporting the ALJ's determination, the Court concludes that the ALJ fully developed the record and was not required to order a consultative psychiatric examination.
Plaintiff contends the ALJ erred by failing to make proper credibility findings as to both Plaintiff's testimony and Ms. Matthews' testimony. (Dkt. 8 at 9).
The Social Security regulations require a two-step process for the ALJ to consider
Here, in considering Plaintiff's credibility, the ALJ properly applied the two step analysis. First, the ALJ found that Plaintiff's medically determinable impairments could be expected to cause the alleged symptoms. (Tr. 97). Second, the ALJ considered Plaintiff's testimony that he had worked over the past summer, and that he enjoyed listening to music, hanging out with friends, and playing basketball. (Tr. 91). The ALJ also considered the fact that claimant had taken regular classes despite his alleged impairments and had testified to only mild limitations in social functioning and life experiences. (Tr. 92). In light of these statements, the ALJ found that Plaintiff's statements "concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of his symptoms" were "not entirely credible." (Tr. 97).
"`It is the function of the [Commissioner], not [the Court], to resolve evidentiary conflicts and to appraise the credibility of the witnesses, including the claimant.'" Aponte v. Sec'y, Dep't Health and Human Servs., 728 F.2d 588, 591 (2d Cir.1984) (quoting Carroll v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 705 F.2d 638, 642 (2d Cir.1983)). "The Commissioner may discount a plaintiff's testimony to the extent that it is inconsistent with medical evidence, the lack of medical treatment, and activities during the relevant period." F.S. v. Astrue, No. 10-cv-444, 2012 WL 514944, at *20 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 15, 2012). If the ALJ does find that a claimant's testimony is not credible, then the ALJ's determination must "be set forth with sufficient specificity to permit intelligible plenary review of the record." Williams on Behalf of Williams v. Bowen, 859 F.2d 255, 260-61 (2d Cir.1988). It appears that the ALJ properly considered Plaintiff's statements in light of the required factors and made a determination that Plaintiff's testimony was not entirely credible in light of the evidence. (Tr. 97-98). Further, as required, the ALJ specifically noted the evidence reviewed to support that finding. (Id.). Accordingly, the Court finds that the ALJ did not commit a legal error in evaluating Plaintiff's credibility.
Plaintiff argues that the ALJ was required to consider Ms. Matthews'
Here, the ALJ referred to Ms. Matthews' testimony in three sections of the decision. (Tr. 90, 91, 94). First, the ALJ noted that Ms. Matthews had testified that Plaintiff might have ADHD or a mood disorder. (Tr. 90). The ALJ stated that the record did not include any medical diagnosis for ADHD or any mood disorders, so Ms. Matthews' testimony was disregarded. (Id.).
Although the ALJ did not expressly state the weight she did or did not give to Ms. Matthews' testimony (e.g. "little weight" or "great weight"), the ALJ did discuss the testimony in such a way as to make it clear to a reviewer of the decision that she discredited Ms. Matthews' opinion. When "the evidence of record permits us to glean the rationale of an ALJ's decision, we do not require that [s]he have mentioned every item of testimony presented to [her] or have explained why [s]he considered particular evidence unpersuasive or insufficient to lead [her] to a conclusion of disability." Mongeur, 722 F.2d at 1040 (citing Berry v. Schweiker, 675 F.2d 464, 469 (2d Cir.1982)).
Even if the ALJ did consider Ms. Matthews' testimony to have great weight, this consideration would not impact the ultimate outcome of the finding of no disability because there was no clinical evidence in the record to support a finding of disability. Statements alone cannot be conclusive evidence of disability; instead, "[m]edical signs and laboratory findings, established by medically acceptable clinical or laboratory diagnostic techniques, must show the existence of a medical impairment(s) which results from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities and which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged." 20 C.F.R. § 416.929(b).
Therefore, any error in failing to assign a specific weight to Ms. Matthew's opinion is a harmless error. See Zabala v. Astrue,
The ALJ determined that Plaintiff has a marked limitation in acquiring and using information, but found no additional "marked" or "extreme" limitation to find Plaintiff disabled through a functional equivalent analysis. (Tr. 96). Plaintiff argues that the ALJ should have concluded that Plaintiff had a marked limitation in the domain of interacting and relating with others. (Dkt. 8 at 10-11).
When considering a child's limitations in the domain of interacting and relating with others, the Commissioner weighs a claimant's ability to "initiate and sustain emotional connections with others, develop and use the language of [his] community, cooperate with others, comply with rules, respond to criticism, and respect and take care of the possessions of others." 20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(i).
Here, considering the evidence as a whole, there is substantial evidence supporting the ALJ's determination that Plaintiff did not suffer from an inability to appropriately interact with others such that he would have a marked limitation in the domain. Despite Ms. Matthews' description of impairments, there was no substantial medical evidence from the relevant time period to support her statement, making her testimony less credible. See Lanzo ex rel. J.I.C. v. Astrue, No. 10-cv-271S, 2012 WL 838921, at *6 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 12, 2012) (finding mother's testimony not credible where there was no clinical evidence to support her statements). The ALJ is not required to "reconcile every conflicting shred of medical testimony." Falcon, 88 F.Supp.2d at 90-91 (citing Miles v. Harris, 645 F.2d 122, 124 (2d Cir.1981)). "This Court must afford the Commissioner's determination considerable deference, and will not substitute `its own judgment for that of the [Commissioner], even if it might justifiably have reached a different result upon a de novo review.'" Lanzo, 2012 WL 838921, at *1 (citing Valente v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 733 F.2d 1037, 1041 (2d Cir. 1984)) (alteration in original).
As the Commissioner notes, during medical examinations, Plaintiff had a positive affect and provided thoughtful responses to conversation. (Tr. 215-19). Ms. Brunetto opined that Plaintiff had a good prognosis, despite a moderate to severe expressive language delay. (Tr. 91, 215-19). Plaintiff was in regular education classes. (Tr. 215). Plaintiff testified that he enjoyed listening to music, was able to drive, and enjoyed spending time with friends in the neighborhood. (Tr. 73-74). Plaintiff was able to perform two summer jobs and volunteer work. (Tr. 63, 73).
There is also evidence in the record that is not cited in the ALJ's decision which provides support for the finding that Plaintiff had a less than marked limitation in the domain of interacting and relating with others. An ALJ's failure to cite specific evidence in her opinion does not indicate that the evidence was not considered. See Barringer v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 358 F.Supp.2d 67, 79 (N.D.N.Y.2005) (citing Craig v. Apfel, 212 F.3d 433, 436 (8th Cir.2000)).
At step five of the sequential analysis for determining whether or not an adult is disabled, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to demonstrate that there are a substantial number of jobs available in the national economy for Plaintiff to perform. Balsamo v. Chater, 142 F.3d 75, 80 (2d Cir.1998). The Commissioner will utilize the Medical Vocational Guidelines or "grids" found at 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2. Pratts v. Chater, 94 F.3d 34, 38-39 (2d Cir.1996). However, "if a claimant has nonexertional impairments which `significantly limit the range of work permitted by his exertional limitations,' then the Commissioner cannot rely upon the grids, and instead `must introduce the testimony of a vocational expert (or other similar evidence) that jobs exist in the economy which claimant can obtain or perform.'" Griffith v. Astrue, No. 08-cv-6004 (CJS), 2009 WL 909630, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2009) (citing Pratts, 94 F.3d at 39). A VE may be consulted to provide evidence concerning the existence of jobs in the national economy that a claimant with particular functional limitations could perform. 20 C.F.R. § 416.966(e).
Plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred in relying on the VE testimony because the hypotheticals posed to the VE were created with an RFC that Plaintiff claims were not supported by substantial evidence in the record. (Dkt. 8 at 11-12). As discussed, the ALJ did not commit legal error in conducting her analysis of Plaintiff's disability claim, and therefore her RFC determination and hypothetical questions were supported by substantial evidence. As a result, Plaintiff's contentions concerning the ALJ's reliance on the VE's testimony are misplaced.
For the foregoing reasons, the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. 9) is granted, and Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. 7) is denied. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed with prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
