analysis is not supported by substantial evidence and did not comply with the factors set forth in SSR 96-7p. (Dkt. No. 10, p. 24). The Commissioner contends that the ALJ reasonably concluded that plaintiffs subjective symptoms were not entirely credible. Defendant argues that the ALJ properly found that plaintiffs claimed psychiatric symptoms were refuted by her treatment records and inconsistent with her activities and lifestyle. (Dkt. No. 11, p. 21-22). The ALJ retains discretion to assess the credibility of a claimant’s testimony regarding disabling pain and “to arrive at an independent judgment, in light of medical findings and other evidence, regarding the true extent of the pain alleged by the claimant.” Marcus v. Califano, 615 F.2d 23, 27 (2d Cir.1979); Snell, 177 F.3d at 135 (<HOLDING>). If plaintiffs testimony concerning the
holding the preponderaneeoftheevidence standard of review does not require this court to disregard the findings at trial or ignore the fact that the circuit court was in a better position to assess the credibility of the witnesses holding that where adequately supported credibility findings are for the alj to make recognizing the purpose of crossexamination is to enlighten the jury as to whether the witness actuallyas a matter of fact knows the general reputation of the defendant and to place the jury in a better position to pass upon the credibility of the witness testimony holding that an alj is in a better position to decide credibility holding that inconsistencies  adequately support the administrative law judges alj  adverse credibility finding