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 .

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

(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,

.926a(c)(3)(i) (1999) and

.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.

.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

(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.,

(1st Cir. 1991). The

Commissioner is responsible for settling credibility issues,

drawing inferences from the record evidence, and resolving

conflicting evidence. See Irlanda Ortiz,

;

Frustaglia v . Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,

9 2 , 195

(1st Cir. 1987); see also Tsarelka v . Sec’y of Health & Human

Servs.,

(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,

(quoting Rodriguez

-14- v . Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,

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.

.994a(b). First, the SSA must

determine if there has been any “medical improvement” in the

child’s condition.

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.

(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.

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,

3 4 , 146 n.5 (1987); Torres v . Sec. of Health & Human

Servs.,

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,

.

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.

.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.

.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.

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

(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,

(“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-