The opinion of the court was delivered by: Stephen J. Hillman United States Magistrate Judge
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court for review of the decision by the Commissioner of Social Security denying plaintiff's application for Supplemental Security Income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties have consented that the case may be handled by the undersigned. The action arises under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which authorizes the Court to enter judgment upon the pleadings and transcript of the record before the Commissioner. The plaintiff and the defendant have filed their pleadings (Plaintiff's Brief with Points and Authorities in Support of Remand or Reversal; Defendant's Brief with Points and Authorities in Opposition to Plaintiff's Request for Remand or Reversal), and the defendant has filed the certified transcript of record. After reviewing the matter, the Court concludes that the decision of the Commissioner should be affirmed.
On January 25, 2007, plaintiff Daniel Sullivan filed an application for Supplemental Security Income, alleging an inability to work since January 25, 2006, due to loss of vision, arthritis, a thyroid problem, sleep apnea, dizziness, anxiety, a mental condition, and depression. (Administrative Record ["AR"] 110-37). On September 3, 2008, an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") determined that plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. (AR 12-22).
Following the Appeals Council's denial of plaintiff's request for a review of the hearing decision (AR 1-3), plaintiff filed an action in this Court.
Plaintiff makes four challenges to the ALJ's Decision denying benefits. Plaintiff alleges that the ALJ erred in (1) determining that plaintiff could perform the jobs of dry cleaner, cleaner/housekeeper and routing clerk; (2) failing to properly consider the treating sources' opinions regarding plaintiff's mental impairments and limitations; (3) failing to properly develop the record; and (4) selectively ignoring, minimizing or misstating evidence in the record.
For the reasons discussed below, the Court concludes that the decision of the Commissioner should be affirmed.
Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ improperly determined that plaintiff could perform the jobs of housekeeper/cleaner, dry cleaner, and routine clerk. Defendant argues that the ALJ properly found that plaintiff could perform such jobs.
In the Decision, the ALJ initially found that plaintiff had the following severe impairments: degenerative changes in the cervical spine with a history of back pain; loss of vision in the left eye; poor hearing with a history of dizziness; history of sleep apnea; hypothyroidism; arthritis in the knees; psychotic disorder not otherwise specified, and depressive disorder not otherwise specified. (AR 14).
The ALJ subsequently found that plaintiff had the following residual functional capacity ("RFC"):
"... [T]he claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform light work... except he is able to perform occasional postural activities but no climbing ladders, ropes, working at heights or around moving machinery. He is limited to work requiring only monocular vision and limited hearing. The claimant is able to perform simple repetitive nonpublic tasks with occasional non-intense contact with supervisors and co-workers and with work that does not require hypervigilence, safety responsibilities, or responsibilities for work of others." (AR 15).
Based on the vocational expert's testimony that a person with plaintiff's RFC could perform the jobs of housekeeper/cleaner, dry cleaner, and routing clerk (see AR 53-57), using descriptions consistent with descriptions contained in the Dictionary of occupational Titles ("DOT")*fn1 (see AR 49), the ALJ determined that plaintiff could perform those jobs. (See AR 22).
Contrary to plaintiff's assertion, the job of housekeeper is not inconsistent with plaintiff's RFC, because it does not require significant interaction with people and it does not involve the activity of hearing. See DOT 323.687-014.
Contrary to plaintiff's assertion, the job of dry cleaner is not inconsistent with plaintiff's RFC, because it does not require working around moving mechanical parts. See DOT 589.685-038.
Contrary to plaintiff's assertion, the job of routing clerk is not inconsistent with plaintiff's RFC, because it does not necessarily require working as a Conveyor Belt Package Sorter. Working with a Conveyor Belt Package Sorter would ...