The opinion of the court was delivered by: Ludwig, District Judge.
Petitioner Philip M. Mullin appeals the Commissioner's denial
of disability insurance benefits. 42 U.S.C. § 401 433.
Jurisdiction is 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Both parties cross-moved for
summary judgment. The Magistrate Judge submitted a Report and
Recommendation and a supplemental Report and Recommendation that
would deny summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.
This recommendation will not be adopted, and instead defendant's
motion will be granted. There appears to be substantial evidence
to support the findings of the Administrative Law Judge.
On August 2, 1994, petitioner filed for disability insurance
benefits, which, on November 2, 1994 and February 23, 1995, were
denied, initially and on reconsideration. Rec. at 9. On December
19, 1996, at petitioner's request, the ALJ held a hearing, and
thereafter wrote the report denying the claim: "The record was
left open for the submission of additional medical evidence, but
none has been offered or identified." Id.*fn2
On September 22, 1997, petitioner filed a timely appeal
stating, "I don't feel the judge is taking into consideration
that my condition is as serious as it is and that it probably is
going to be permanent and get worse." Rec. at 4. On July 14,
1998, the Appeals Council denied petitioner's request for
The ALJ made the following findings:
1. The claimant met the disability insured status
requirements of the Act on July 31, 1993, the date
the claimant stated he became unable to work, and
continues to meet them through December 31, 1998.
2. The claimant has not engaged in substantial
gainful activity since July 31, 1993.
3. The medical evidence establishes that the claimant
has severe back problems and a nonsevere hypertension
impairment, but that he does not have an impairment
or combination of impairments listed in, or medically
equal to one listed in Appendix 1, Subpart P,
Regulations No. 4.
4. The claimant's allegations of pain, tingling,
swelling, and limitation of function are not
substantiated to the degree alleged and are thus not
5. The claimant has the residual functional capacity
to preform work related activities except for work
involving lifting and carrying more than 20 pounds at
a time or more than ten pounds frequently
(20 C.F.R. § 404.1545).
6. The claimant's past relevant work as a carpet
cleaner did not require the performance of work
related activities precluded by the above
limitation(s) (20 C.F.R. § 404.1565).
7. The claimant's impairments do not prevent the
claimant from performing his past relevant work.
8. The claimant was not under a "disability" as
defined in the Social Security Act, at any time
through the date of the decision
(20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e)).
The issue before the ALJ was whether the claimant was disabled
since July 31, 1993. Rec. at 9. The ALJ's report contains an
extensive discussion of the rationale for the decision,
reviewing the entire record, including medical reports*fn5
and petitioner's testimony. According to the report, the medical
evidence, giving petitioner "every benefit of the doubt," showed
petitioner "has a severe back impairment which does not meet or
equal in severity the requirements of Appendix 1." Rec. at 10.
In evaluating the credibility of petitioner's testimony as to
his condition against the ...