The opinion of the court was delivered by: Frederick F. Mumm United States Magistrate Judge
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff brings this action seeking to overturn the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denying his application for a period of disability, disability benefits, and Supplemental Security Income benefits. On February 11, 2009 and March 9, 2009, plaintiff and defendant, respectively, consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Pursuant to the case management order entered on January 28, 2009, on August 28, 2009, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation (the "JS") detailing each party's arguments and authorities. The Court has reviewed the administrative record (the "AR"), filed by defendant on July 2, 2009, and the JS. For the reasons stated below, the decision of the Commissioner is affirmed.
On February 20, 2007, plaintiff filed applications for a period of disability, disability benefits, and Supplemental Security Income benefits. Plaintiff's applications were denied initially and upon reconsideration. Plaintiff requested a hearing before an administrative law judge ("ALJ"). ALJ Jay E. Levine held a hearing on August 23, 2007. (AR 214 - 41.) Plaintiff appeared with counsel and testified at the hearing. (See id.)
On February 7, 2008, the ALJ issued a decision denying benefits. (AR 10 - 22.) On March 11, 2008, plaintiff sought review of the decision before the Social Security Administration Appeals Council. (AR 9.) The Appeals Council denied plaintiff's request for review on November 10, 2008. (AR 4 - 6.)
Plaintiff filed his complaint herein on January 23, 2009.
Plaintiff raises five issues in this action:
1. Whether the ALJ properly considered plaintiff's testimony regarding his treatment history with Dr. Raese;
2. Whether the ALJ properly considered the treating physician's opinion regarding plaintiff's multiple moderate, marked and extreme limitations;
3. Whether the ALJ properly developed the record;
4. Whether the ALJ properly considered plaintiff's testimony regarding his need to use a cane; and
5. Whether the ALJ posed a complete hypothetical question to the ...