Second, Plaintiff contends that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the ALJ's determination as to her pain. She maintains that her subjective amount of pain was discounted based on credibility grounds without contrary medical evidence. This Court's review is limited to determining whether the Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial evidence. The Court neither undertakes a de novo review of the decision, nor does it reweigh the evidence in the record. See Monsour Med.
Substantial evidence is evidence that is less than a preponderance, but more than a mere scintilla.
The record affords substantial evidence to refute Plaintiff's objections. First, the ALJ carefully considered the opinion of Plaintiff's treating physician, Dr. Levy, and properly discounted it to the extent that it precluded Plaintiff from engaging in any substantial gainful activity. Second, while Plaintiff testified about her subjective complaints of pain, the ALJ properly appreciated the weight of her testimony, in light of Plaintiff's other testimony concerning her daily activities and life style. The ALJ also declined to recognize the pain as precluding Plaintiff from any substantial gainful activity when viewed in conjunction with the medical evidence in the record from Plaintiff's treating physicians. In that vein, the Court rejects both parties' reading of the ALJ's admittedly poorly-drafted statement.