Cathy Lore v . SSA CV-02-318-B 08/20/03
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Cathy Lore o/b/o Sean Lore
v. Civil N o . 02-318-B Opinion N o . 2003 DNH 141 Jo Anne B . Barnhart
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On October 2 0 , 1993, Sean Lore was granted Title XVI
Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) disability benefits for
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (“ADHD”), and for the
secondary diagnosis of seizure disorder. The Social Security
Administration (“SSA”) conducted a continuing disability review
in March 1999, concluding that Lore was no longer disabled and
that entitlement to SSI benefits would end in May 1999. A
disability hearing officer (“DHO”) reconsidered the decision on
Lore’s request 1 , and reaffirmed SSA’s conclusion that Lore was no
longer entitled to benefits. Lore filed a timely request for
rehearing upon which administrative law judge (“ALJ”), Frederick
1 I note that Lore’s actions before the SSA and this court were brought by his mother, Cathy Lore, on his behalf. Harap, held a discretionary hearing. On March 2 8 , 2001, the ALJ
issued his decision determining that Lore was not disabled. Lore
appealed, but on May 9, 2002, the Appeals Council denied his
request for review.
Lore brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g),
seeking review of the SSA’s decision to discontinue Lore's
benefits. In response, the Commissioner moves this court to
enter an order affirming her final decision. For the reasons set
forth below, I grant the Commissioner’s motion and affirm her
final decision (Doc. N o . 1 0 ) .
I. BACKGROUND
A. Background Information
Sean Lore was born on November 1 6 , 1990. He was two years
old and in daycare when he was found to be disabled. In March
1999, when it was determined that he was no longer disabled, Lore
was eight years old and in the second grade.
B. Medical Information
Lore began having seizures in late October 1992. On
November 6, 1992, Lore was brought to the emergency room of
Elliot Hospital because of his seizures. A CT scan was
-2- performed, which indicated that Lore suffered from a right
thalamic hemmorhage.2 D r . Anthony Martino transferred Lore to
Dartmouth-Hitchcock Hospital (“Hitchcock Center”). On November
9, 1992, D r . Robert Harbaugh performed a cerebral angiogram,
which was negative, and Lore was discharged.
In December 1992, D r . Martino noted that Lore had been doing
reasonably well since his discharge, but recommended the surgical
removal of an accessible lesion to eliminate the risk of future
hemorrhaging. A craniotomy (to remove the lesion) was performed
on January 2 6 , 1993. On February 2 2 , 1993, D r . Martino reported
that Lore was doing well and that, overall, he had returned to
his normal activities. However, Lore’s mother reported that she
was having difficulty giving Lore his prescribed anti-convulsive
medication, and that Lore still suffered from seizures. The
seizures consisted of sudden stiffening in all four extremities,
frothing at the mouth, and loss of consciousness. D r . Martino
referred Lore to D r . Brian Kossak for evaluation and treatment,
as D r . Martino felt the seizures could be a longstanding problem.
2 Escape of blood or bleeding in the thalamus (sensory relay station of the brain). Attorneys’ Textbook of Medicine ¶ 82.21 (3d ed. 2002)
-3- Lore’s seizures continued to be treated with anti-convulsive
medications. From March 1994 to February 2000, Lore’s seizures
generally occurred infrequently. In February 2000, however, Lore
had an abnormal EEG finding. Although the cause of this
abnormality apparently was never identified, the medical record
notes that it could reflect an abnormal cleft of the brain
substance or an old ischemic event.3 In an unrelated event, Lore
was hospitalized in early February 2000 for regulation of his
seizure medication. D r . Kossak switched Lore to a new
medication. On March 2 8 , 2000, D r . Kossak noted that Lore was
responding well to this medication. In January 2001, D r . Michael
Robbins conducted a pediatric neurological evaluation of Lore,
which resulted in a normal exam and EEG.
Prior to Lore’s onset of seizures and his craniotomy, he
exhibited behavioral problems, such as hyperactivity and
defiance. While recovering from the surgery at the Hitchcock
Center, staff members observed Lore bang his head on the floor
when being told “no” and when put in his crib for naps. On
February 1 6 , 1993, Easter Seal Rehabilitation Center performed a
3 A deficiency of blood usually due to functional constriction or actual obstruction of a blood vessel. Dorland’s Medical Dictionary 861 (28th ed. 1994)
-4- developmental evaluation because of concerns about Lore’s
behavior. It concluded that Lore demonstrated skills typically
seen in children his age. However, both D r . Martino and D r .
Kossak noted that Lore threw temper tantrums and “acted out.”
Lore was admitted to the Hitchcock Center on May 1 1 , 1993
for evaluation of his destructive behavior. D r . Peter Williamson
examined Lore and reported that his self-destructive episodic
behavior consisted of screaming, hitting himself, head-banging,
and gouging his eyes. D r . Williamson noted that this behavior
predated Lore’s craniotomy. D r . Willaimson also concluded that
epilepsy was unlikely, as Lore’s episodes were provoked and he
was apparently cognizant of his surroundings during his “acting
out.”
On May 1 7 , 1993, D r . Timothy Colbert conducted a behavioral
pediatrics consultation of Lore. He noted that Lore was
generally compliant with requests and without any clear
opposition or defiant behavior. He suggested that there may be
some correlation between the lesion Lore experienced and his
behavioral issues. However, D r . Colbert ultimately concluded
that Lore’s behavioral problems were more likely the product of
his natural temperament and environment. In other words, Lore
-5- acted out to get attention, whether positive or negative. Dr.
Colbert suggested that Lore would respond to a strong, consistent
behavioral management program. He recommended that Lore and his
mother “be referred to a good behavioral psychologist for
training and monitoring of behavioral modification techniques.”
A report from Lore's school psychologist, in November 1996,
indicated that Lore was an active yet cooperative child with
borderline to average intellectual ability, significantly
impacted by severe deficits in visual-motor integration skills
using paper/pencil. Additionally, the psychologist concluded
that his attention, concentration and physical restlessness were
notably improved following morning break, which included snack
time. However, Lore continued to display some behavioral issues,
including negative behavior at school and home.
In December 1998, D r . Allan Mendell, completed a mental
impairment report. D r . Mendell found that Lore was hyperactive,
disruptive in school, socially inappropriate - but able to keep a
friend, and that his concentration and attention were very poor.
In January 1999, a clinical psychologist, D r . Angel Martinez,
conducted a psychological evaluation of Lore. D r . Martinez
reported that Lore was diagnosed with ADHD and oppositional
-6- defiant disorder (“ODD”). D r . Martinez found that Lore's
cognitive functioning was in the low-average to average range,
and that his reasoning skills and problem solving abilities were
generally within the range expected for his age. Lore could
adequately express his needs, communicate with others and engage
in physical activities, but had some difficulties with fine motor
tasks. With respect to social functioning, D r . Martinez noted
that Lore had two neighborhood friends and got along well with
other children at home and at school. Martinez concluded that
Lore would not encounter many difficulties in interacting with
peers, but Lore might have slight problems in social interaction
because of his inattention and hyperactivity symptoms. Lore's
self-care skills were found to be generally adequate for his age,
but his ability to respond appropriately to demands was
compromised by his ADHD symptoms. Finally Martinez concluded
that Lore's focused attention and concentration were fair, but
that sustained concentration could not be maintained throughout
the entire evaluation.
In February and March 1999, D r . Michael Schneider, a state
agency psychologist, reviewed the record and prepared a childhood
disability evaluation form concerning Lore's impairments. Dr.
-7- Schneider found there was apparent improvement in his ADHD, ODD,
and seizure disorder. Specifically, D r . Schneider found no
evidence of limitation in cognitive or communicative functioning
and a less-than-marked limitation in motor, social, and personal
functioning. Lastly, D r . Schneider indicated that Lore's
concentration, persistence and pace were at a severe level, but
not at the level of being marked.4
In June 1999, D r . Burton Nault completed an advisory
childhood disability evaluation. D r . Nault opined that it was
impossible to state that medical improvement had actually
occurred in Lore’s seizure disorder. However, D r . Nault also
noted that, in his opinion, the seizures had never been
disabling. D r . Nault concluded that although Lore’s impairments
may be severe, they did not meet, medically equal, or
functionally equal the severity of a listed impairment.
In July 1999, D r . Diane Collins conducted a psychological
evaluation and intellectual profile of Lore. D r . Collins found
that Lore had a verbal IQ of 8 5 , a performance IQ of 91 and a
4 According to D r . Schneider’s report, Lore suffered a “more than minimal amount of dysfunction within the concentration, persistence and pace domain. However, overall, [Lore’s] limitations [did] not meet or equal Listings levels.” See also, 20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(c)(3)(i) (1999) and 20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(e)(2)(2001) for definition of “marked limitation.”
-8- full scale IQ of 8 7 , placing him in the low-average to average
range. D r . Collins noted that her mental status evaluation was
compatible with D r . Martinez’ findings, although the issue of
sustained attention was not a problem during the testing
procedure. D r . Collins opined that Lore demonstrated ease and
strength in his ability to communicate pragmatically; performed
in the low-average to average range in his ability to function in
the areas of academics, reasoning and problem-solving; would be
without impairment in engaging in physical activities;
demonstrated an ability within normal limits to help himself in
areas of personal need and safety; and, with medication
management, would be able to perform in the low-average to
average range in the ability to engage in activities, sustain
those activities and pace himself appropriately.
In August 1999, D r . Mendell noted that Lore was well-
behaved, his mood and social abilities were normal, his thoughts
were goal-directed and coherent, and that Lore denied delusions
and hallucinations. D r . Mendell reported that Lore attended
summer camp daily, but required medication, structure, and
supervision for his concentration and attention.
In October 1999, several persons testified before DHO
-9- Theodore J. Starvu in regard to Lore’s request for
reconsideration. M s . Macropol, Lore’s third grade teacher,
observed that Lore’s cognitive abilities were satisfactory, that
he communicated his ideas with good content, that he read and
performed math skills at grade level. M s . Macropol indicated
that Lore had lots of friends and interacted well with them, and
that she had not observed any behavioral extremes. She noted
that Lore’s organizational skills were deficient, but that he
still got his assignments done on time. M s . Macropol indicated
that she had not observed Lore ever having a seizure.
Mrs. Lore described her son as “very aggressive,” mainly
because he is not aware of his strength. She stated that he runs
through the house knocking things down and “kicks, spits, hits,
and punches.” She indicated that he was argumentative with his
four year old sister, taking things from her and hurting her, and
that he had temper tantrums when reprimanded. She reported that
his functioning deteriorated after school and that she had
problems controlling him. Additionally, she reported that he
averaged three minor seizures per month, occurring at night, but
that the last such seizure was four months before the hearing.
However, Mrs. Lore stated that his last grand mal seizure was two
-10- months prior to the hearing. She reported that Lore had to hear
things three to four times before he understood them and that his
concentration was poor even when she read to him. However, his
attention improved when watching wrestling on television.
Mrs. Harrison, a friend of Lore’s mother, stated that Lore
had periods of rage about once every two weeks during which he
kicked, threw toys, and hurt people. Additionally, Lore had
problems because he got “hyper,” could not watch an entire film,
and did not finish tasks. She indicated that Lore had major
problems socially and picked fights with his peers.
Mrs. Millete, Lore’s grandmother, stated that she was scared
to babysit Lore because of his temper tantrums. She also stated
that Lore did not like to hear “no” and did chores when he wanted
to and not when he was told.
The DHO spoke with Lore and reported that Lore denied
visual, hearing and communication problems. Lore stated that he
had lots of friends, but admitted to having problems washing and
taking care of himself. The DHO noted that the writing of Lore’s
name appeared immature and illustrated motor function problems,
but that Lore could read at grade level and perform other age-
appropriate tasks. The DHO stated that Lore was a young, well-
-11- built, robust boy who was cooperative. Although Lore was
fidgeting at times, the DHO concluded he was able to concentrate
and observed no significant abnormalities.
In November 2000, Lore’s primary care physician, D r .
Schwartzberg, completed a functional assessment of his abilities.
He indicated that there was no evidence of limitation in Lore’s
motor development, less than a moderate limitation in social
development and cognitive/communicative development, a moderate
limitation in his personal development, and a marked limitation
in concentration, persistence and pace.
At the administrative hearing before the ALJ, Lore’s mother
testified that Lore had previously suffered grand mal seizures,
but was now having only minor seizures, the last such seizure
being a month prior to the hearing. She indicated that Lore had
no disciplinary problems at school and that he was “very very
good” there, but that he was a disciplinary problem at home.
Additionally, she reported that Lore had dizzy spells once or
twice a month, although he had not missed school because his
physical problems generally occurred after school or in the
middle of the night.
C. ALJ’s Decision
-12- The ALJ employed the three step analysis for evaluation of a
child’s continuing disability. 20 C.F.R. § 416.994a (2002). The
ALJ determined that there had been medical improvement in Lore’s
condition and that he no longer met or medically equaled Listing
112.02 (organic mental disorder), the listing Lore had previously
met when he was found disabled.
At step three, the ALJ determined that Lore’s ADHD and
seizure disorder were severe within the meaning of the
regulations, but that no treating or examining physician had
concluded that Lore’s impairment currently met or medically
equaled a listed impairment. The ALJ also determined that Lore’s
impairments did not “functionally equal” any of the listed
impairments. In making this analysis, because of a change to the
regulations on January 2 , 2001, the ALJ analyzed functional
equivalence both as it existed prior to and after those changes.
In sum, the ALJ concluded that Lore’s disability ceased in March
1999.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
After a final determination by the Commissioner denying a
claimant’s application for benefits and upon a timely request by
-13- the claimant, I am authorized to review the pleadings submitted
by the parties and the transcript of the administrative record
and enter a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the
Commissioner’s decision. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The court’s
review is limited in scope, however, as the Commissioner’s
factual findings are conclusive only if they are supported by
substantial evidence. See id.; Irlanda Ortiz v . Sec’y of Health
& Human Servs., 955 F.2d 765, 769 (1st Cir. 1991). The
Commissioner is responsible for settling credibility issues,
drawing inferences from the record evidence, and resolving
conflicting evidence. See Irlanda Ortiz, 955 F.2d at 769;
Frustaglia v . Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 829 F.2d 1 9 2 , 195
(1st Cir. 1987); see also Tsarelka v . Sec’y of Health & Human
Servs., 842 F.2d 529, 535 (1st Cir. 1988) (“[W]e must uphold the
[C]ommissioner’s conclusion, even if the record arguably could
justify a different conclusion, so long as it is supported by
substantial evidence.”) (citations omitted). Therefore, the
court must “‘uphold the [Commissioner’s] findings . . . if a
reasonable mind, reviewing the evidence in the record as a whole,
could accept it as adequate to support [the Commissioner’s]
conclusion.’” Irlanda Ortiz, 955 F.2d at 769 (quoting Rodriguez
-14- v . Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 647 F.2d 2 1 8 , 222 (1st Cir.
1981)).
III. DISCUSSION
The SSA has adopted a three-step sequential evaluation for
periodic determinations of whether a child’s disability
continues. 20 C.F.R. § 416.994a(b). First, the SSA must
determine if there has been any “medical improvement” in the
child’s condition. Id. at § 416.994a(b)(1). Medical improvement
is “any decrease in the medical severity of [the claimant’s]
impairment(s) which was present at the time of the most recent
favorable decision that [the claimant] w[as] disabled or
continued to be disabled . . . based on changes (improvements) in
the symptoms, signs, or laboratory findings associated with [the
claimant’s] impairment(s).” Id. at § 416.994a(c). Second, the
SSA determines whether, despite improvement, the impairment still
meets or equals the severity of the listed impairment it met at
the time of the most recent favorable decision that the claimant
was disabled. Id. at § 416.994a(b)(2). If the impairment does,
the child’s disability will be found to continue. If the
impairment does not, the SSA will proceed to step three. In step
-15- three, the SSA must determine whether the child is currently
disabled under the rules for determining eligibility in initial
disability claims for children. Id. at § 416.994a(b)(3).
A. Medical Improvement of Lore’s Impairments
Since Lore’s initial, favorable disability determination,
the medical record indicates that his ADHD has improved. In
November 1997, it was reported that Lore showed occasional
behavioral problems at home, but had settled down at school. In
1999, D r . Schneider concluded that there had been medical
improvement in Lore’s ADHD. D r . Collins’s July 1999 evaluation
of Lore noted that he had no problem sustaining attention during
her evaluation, and in August 1999, D r . Mendell concluded that
Lore’s mood and social abilities were normal. Mrs. Lore
indicated that although Lore’s behavior was bad at home, he
nevertheless had no trouble attentively watching wrestling on
t.v. M s . Macropol, Lore’s teacher, testified in October 1999
that Lore did not exhibit any behavioral extremes.
A review of the record reveals that the overall medical
impression of Lore, since his initial disability determination,
was that his ADHD has improved. At worst, it can be managed by
medication and structured activities. Lore’s behavior at school
-16- has improved dramatically, resulting in his mother stating that
he is “very, very good there.” The ALJ’s finding that Lore’s
ADHD has improved is supported by substantial evidence.
Likewise, Lore’s seizure disorder has improved and is
presently well-managed by anti-convulsive medication. Although
Lore still suffers from seizures, D r . Kossak’s reports indicate
that as of October 1998, they occur only infrequently. Lore’s
mother testified before the ALJ that his seizures were minor in
nature and no longer of the grand mal variety. This was also
noted in D r . Martinez’s January 1999 report. D r . Schneider found
in March 1999 that there had been medical improvement in both
Lore’s seizure disorder and ADHD, and D r . Nault opined in June
1999 that Lore’s seizure disorder had never been disabling.
Lastly, the most recent neurological examination of Lore,
conducted by D r . Robbins, was normal. Given Lore’s medical
record, which includes the opinions of five physicians that his
seizure disorder has improved or become well-managed with anti-
convulsive medications, the ALJ’s conclusion that Lore’s seizure
disorder has medically improved is supported by substantial
evidence.
-17- B. Lore’s Condition No Longer Meets Listing 112.02
The second step in the sequential evaluation is to determine
whether Lore’s impairment, although improved, still meets or
equals the severity of listing he previously met. A review of
the medical record supports the ALJ’s finding that no treating or
examining physician identified criteria that would meet or equal
any listing impairment. Indeed, Drs. Collins, Martinez, and
Schneider, who each independently evaluated Lore, concluded that
he only suffered a marked limitation in concentration,
persistence or pace. Although D r . Schwartzberg’s functional
assessment of Lore in November 2000 indicated that Lore had
moderate limitations regarding social development, personal
development, and cognitive/communicative development, Dr.
Schwartzberg also concluded that Lore had a marked limitation
only in concentration, persistence or pace. Considering the
opinions of these four doctors, Lore’s only severe or marked
limitation was in the area of concentration, persistence or pace.
As such, the ALJ’s conclusion that Lore’s improved impairment
failed to meet or equal the severity required under listing
112.02 (in effect at the time of the initial disability
determination) is supported by substantial evidence. In short,
-18- no medical evidence exists in the record to support a finding
that Lore was disabled under listing 112.02.
C. Lore is not Presently Disabled
The third step in the sequential evaluation is to determine
whether the child is disabled under the rules for determining
eligibility in initial disability claims for children. First,
the ALJ must determine whether the child has a severe impairment
or combination of impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 416.924(c). The ALJ
found Lore’s impairments severe. Second, the ALJ must determine
whether the impairment meets, medically equals, or functionally
equals in severity the applicable listed impairment in appendix 1
of the regulations. Id. at § 416.924(d). As I have concluded
that the ALJ’s finding that Lore’s impairments did not meet or
medically equal a listed impairment was supported by substantial
evidence, I turn to whether substantial evidence supports the
ALJ’s conclusions that Lore’s impairments were not functionally
equivalent to 112.02 at 20 CFR part 4 0 4 , subpart P, appendix 1 .
I briefly note Lore’s contentions that the ALJ erred in this
step of the process by failing to consider whether Lore’s
impairment satisfied other listed disabilities. He also argues
that it is not clear whether the ALJ properly considered his
-19- impairment under 112.02. I dismiss these arguments. First, it
is clear from a full reading of the ALJ’s opinion that he
assessed Lore’s impairment under the criteria set forth in
112.02. Indeed, this listing is at the heart of the dispute and
is specifically referenced by the ALJ. Second, Lore bore the
burden of demonstrating that he had an impairment which met or
equaled a listed impairment in Appendix 1 . See Bowen v . Yuckert,
482 U.S. 1 3 4 , 146 n.5 (1987); Torres v . Sec. of Health & Human
Servs., 870 F.2d 7 4 2 , 745 (1st Cir. 1989). It is not enough for
Lore to now allege that the ALJ should have considered other
listings, which Lore never pressed in his application for
benefits, his hearings before the DHO or ALJ, nor to the Appeals
Council. Moreover, even in his appeal before m e , Lore presents
no substantive argument indicating how his alleged impairments
meet the listings he suggests the ALJ should have evaluated in
detail. C f . Torres, 870 F.2d at 745.
I turn to the ALJ’s assessment of whether Lore’s impairments
were functionally equivalent to a listing in Appendix 1 . The
regulations applicable to the period prior to January 2 , 2001
provide for four methods for determining functional equivalence.
Those methods involve evaluations of limitation of specific
-20- functions, broad areas of development or functioning, episodic
impairments, and limitations related to treatment or medication
effects. 20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(b)(1)-(4)(2000). For children
like Lore, aged 3-18, the ALJ evaluates functioning in five
categories: (1) Cognitive or communicative development; (2) Motor
development; (3) Social development; (4) Personal development;
and (5) Concentration, persistence and pace. Disability is
established when the child demonstrates an extreme degree of
limitation in one category or a marked limitation in two
categories. 20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(c)(4). For children aged 3 to
18 a marked limitation arises when several activities or
functions are limited or even when only one is limited as long as
the degree of limitation is such as to interfere seriously with
the child’s functioning. An extreme limitation arises when there
is no meaningful function in a given area. Id. at §
416.926a(c)(3)(i)-(ii).
The ALJ carefully evaluated the reports o f , among others,
Dr. Schwartzberg, D r . Collins, D r . Martinez, and D r . Mendell.
The ALJ concluded that Lore only had a marked impairment in
concentration, persistence and pace, and therefore his ADHD or
seizure disorder did not functionally equal any listing.
-21- Specifically, the ALJ concluded that the doctors’ reports
suggested that Lore had a moderate limitation in personal
development, a less than moderate limitation in social
development and cognitive and communicative development, and that
Lore’s motor functioning was not significantly limited. The
ALJ’s conclusion that Lore, at best, only suffered from a marked
limitation in concentration, persistence or pace and therefore
failed to demonstrate his impairment functionally equaled any
listing is supported by substantial evidence. Again, the ALJ’s
decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record.
The new regulations for determining functional equivalence
require that the ALJ determine Lore’s functioning in six broad
areas of functioning called “domains.” For children aged 6 to 12
the domains are: (1) Acquiring and using information; (2)
Attending and completing tasks; (3) Interacting and relating with
others; (4) Moving about and manipulating objects; (5) Caring for
yourself; and (6) Health and physical well-being. A child will
be found disabled if that child has marked limitations in at
least two of the domains or an extreme limitation in any one of
the domains.
The ALJ considered Lore’s impairments in light of the new
-22- regulations, and determined that Lore had no restrictions or
limitations in his ability to acquire and use information, move
about and manipulate objects, care for himself, interact with
others, or in his overall health and well-being. The ALJ noted
that Lore continued to have some difficulties in the classroom
relating to the timely completion of homework because of a
weakness in his ability to attend and complete tasks. Thus, the
ALJ concluded that Lore had a marked limitation in his ability to
attend and complete tasks. Since Lore had no extreme impairments
in any domain and only a marked impairment in one domain the ALJ
concluded that Lore did not functionally equal any of the listed
impairments. This conclusion is supported by the reports of Drs.
Collins, Schwartzberg, Martinez, and Robbins. It is further
buttressed by the testimony of Lore’s teacher M s . Macropol, who
noted that Lore’s cognitive abilities were satisfactory, that he
communicated his ideas with good content, and that he read and
performed math skills at grade level. M s . Macropol also
indicated that Lore had lots of friends and interacted well with
them, and that she had not observed any behavioral extremes.
-23- IV. CONCLUSION5
Pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), I deny the
plaintiff’s motion for an order reversing the decision of the
Commissioner (Doc. N o . 9 ) , and grant the defendant’s motion for
an order affirming the decision of the Commissioner (Doc. N o .
10). The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgement in
accordance with this order and close the case.
SO ORDERED.
Paul Barbadoro Chief Judge August 20 2003
cc: David Boderick, Esq. Raymond Kelly, Esq.
5 I dismiss Lore’s contention that the ALJ erred in failing to obtain a medical expert opinion. Here, multiple physicians concluded that Lore’s impairments did not meet or equal a listed disability. The ALJ’s adoption of these conclusions did not require an interpretation of medical data nor require an additional medical expert to explain the physicians’ reports. The ALJ did not abuse his discretion by failing to obtain the testimony of a medical expert. I also dismiss Lore’s contention that the ALJ failed to properly assess Mrs. Lore’s credibility. Although I am concerned by the limited findings provided by the ALJ to support his credibility determination, I conclude that it is supported by substantial evidence. See Frustaglia, 829 F.2d at 195 (“Although more express findings, regarding head pain and credibility, than those given here are preferable, we have examined the entire record and their adequacy is supported by substantial evidence.”).
-24-