Anderson v. Commissioner of Social Security

• Court: District Court, N.D. New York
• Decided: December 16, 2022
• Docket: 5:21-cv-01154
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _________________________

ALICIA M. A.,

Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 5:21-CV-1154 (DEP)

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant. __________________________

APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL:

FOR PLAINTIFF

LAW OFFICES OF JUSTIN M. GOLDSTEIN, ESQ. KENNETH HILLER, PLLC KENNETH R. HILLER, ESQ. 6000 North Bailey Ave, Suite 1A Amherst, NY 14226

FOR DEFENDANT

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMIN. VERNON NORWOOD, ESQ. OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL 6401 Security Boulevard Baltimore, MD 21235

DAVID E. PEEBLES U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE ORDER Currently pending before the court in this action, in which plaintiff seeks judicial review of an adverse administrative determination by the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3), are cross-motions for judgment on the

pleadings.1 Oral argument was heard in connection with those motions on December 13, 2022, during a telephone conference conducted on the record. At the close of argument, I issued a bench decision in which, after

applying the requisite deferential review standard, I found that the Commissioner=s determination resulted from the application of proper legal principles and is supported by substantial evidence, providing further detail regarding my reasoning and addressing the specific issues raised by the

plaintiff in this appeal. After due deliberation, and based upon the court=s oral bench decision, which has been transcribed, is attached to this order, and is

incorporated herein by reference, it is hereby ORDERED, as follows: 1) Defendant=s motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED.

1 This matter, which is before me on consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(c), has been treated in accordance with the procedures set forth in General Order No. 18. Under that General Order, once issue has been joined, an action such as this is considered procedurally as if cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings had been filed pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 2) |The Commissioner’s determination that the plaintiff was not disabled at the relevant times, and thus is not entitled to benefits under the Social Security Act, is AFFIRMED. 3) The clerk is respectfully directed to enter judgment, based

upon this determination, DISMISSING plaintiff's complaint in its entirety.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Dated: December 16, 2022 Syracuse, NY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------x ALICIA MARIE A.,

Plaintiff,

vs. 21-CV-1154

Defendant. -------------------------------------------------------x TRANSCRIPT OF DECISION held on December 13, 2022 by teleconference the HONORABLE DAVID E. PEEBLES United States Magistrate Judge, Presiding

APPEARANCES (by telephone) For Plaintiff: LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH HILLER, PLLC 600 North Bailey Avenue Amherst, New York 14226 BY: JUSTIN M. GOLDSTEIN, ESQ.

For Defendant: SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 6401 Security Boulevard Baltimore, MD 21235 BY: VERNON NORWOOD, ESQ.

Eileen McDonough, RPR, CRR Official United States Court Reporter P.O. Box 7367 Syracuse, New York 13261 (315)234-8546 1 THE COURT: Let me begin by thanking counsel for 2 excellent and, if not, spirited presentations. 3 This is a proceeding brought pursuant to 42, United 4 States Code, Sections 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) by the plaintiff 5 challenging an adverse determination by the Commissioner of 6 Social Security finding that she was not disabled at the 7 relevant times and therefore ineligible for the benefits 8 sought. 9 The background is as follows. Plaintiff was born 10 in January of 1979 and is currently 43 years of age. She was 11 40 years old at the alleged onset of disability on 12 October 17, 2019. She stands 5-foot 1-inch in height and 13 weighs approximately 120 pounds. 14 Plaintiff lives alone in a mobile home in Mexico, 15 New York. She is married but her husband has been 16 incarcerated, or was at the time of the hearing, since 2018. 17 Plaintiff has five children; in February of 2021 they ranged 18 in age from 14 to 23. And although she shares joint custody 19 with the father, the father is the primary custodian and the 20 plaintiff states that she does not see her children. 21 Plaintiff has a high school diploma and attended 22 regular classes while in school. She also underwent a BOCES 23 office/technical program. Plaintiff had a driver's license 24 but it has been suspended as a result of child support 25 issues. Plaintiff is a weekly user of marijuana and a former 1 alcohol abuser. 2 Plaintiff stopped working in December of 2018. 3 After being in the Army, she worked in various positions, 4 including as a drug tester, in retail, and a medical Medicaid 5 transport driver. 6 Physically, plaintiff suffers from several 7 impediments, including cervical spine issues that have been 8 described as disc protrusion, Type 2 diabetes, asthma, 9 headaches, and bilateral wrist issues. 10 Mentally, plaintiff experiences anxiety, bipolar 11 disorder, depression, and alcohol use disorder. She was 12 hospitalized twice in 2016 based upon suicidal ideations, but 13 has not been hospitalized during the relevant period for 14 psychiatric reasons. 15 The records seem to indicate, as defendant's 16 counsel has argued, that plaintiff's psychological conditions 17 are exacerbated by marital issues surrounding her 18 relationship with her husband, and at one time due to the 19 possibility that she suffered from breast cancer. Plaintiff 20 has obtained treatment through various sources, including 21 Liberty Resources, where she sees Nurse Practitioner Joshua 22 Blodgett one time per month, and Licensed Clinical Social 23 Worker Anthony Fazzino weekly. She also sees Dr. Young Seo 24 at Central New York Spine and Pain Medication. She treats at 25 Prime Care Medical Center and Oswego Health. 1 Plaintiff's activities of daily living include the 2 ability to bathe, dress, groom, cook, clean, do laundry, go 3 to the store occasionally, her friend takes her due to the 4 lack of a driver's license, some socialization. She watches 5 television. She plays video games. She reads. She goes on 6 social media. She is able to sometimes mow her lawn but not 7 always, and shovels some snow, although her neighbor helps in 8 that regard. 9 Procedurally, plaintiff applied for Supplemental 10 Security Income Payments, or Title XVI benefits, on April 30, 11 2020, alleging an onset date of October 17, 2019. The record 12 suggests that there are multiple prior denials of Title II 13 disability insurance payment applications, possibly in 2014, 14 2016 and 2019, and those are the dates upon which apparently 15 the Social Security Administration Appeals Council denied 16 review in those cases. 17 A hearing was conducted on February 18, 2021 by 18 Administrative Law Judge Robyn Hoffman who addressed 19 plaintiff's application for benefits. A supplemental hearing 20 with a vocational expert was conducted by ALJ Hoffman on July 21 21, 2021. On August 4, 2021, ALJ Hoffman issued an 22 unfavorable decision which became a final determination of 23 the Agency on September 15, 2021, when the Social Security 24 Administration Appeals Council denied plaintiff's application 25 for review. This action was commenced on October 21, 2021, 1 and is timely. 2 In her decision ALJ Hoffman applied the familiar 3 five-step sequential test for determining disability. She 4 first found that plaintiff had not engaged in substantial 5 gainful activity since April 30, 2020, the date of her Title 6 XVI application. 7 At step two she concluded that plaintiff does 8 suffer from severe impairments that impose more than minimal 9 limitations on her ability to perform work functions, 10 including cervical spine disc protrusion, bipolar disorder, 11 anxiety disorder, and major depressive disorder. 12 At step three ALJ Hoffman concluded that 13 plaintiff's conditions do not meet or equal any of the listed 14 presumptively disabling conditions set forth in the 15 Commissioner's regulations, specifically considering listings 16 1.15, 12.04, 12.06 and 12.15. 17 After reviewing the available evidence in the 18 record, ALJ Hoffman next concluded that notwithstanding her 19 impairments, plaintiff is capable of performing light work as 20 defined in the regulations with limitations both physical and 21 mental. I'll address them in more detail during my analysis 22 of plaintiff's arguments. 23 At step four, applying that RFC determination, ALJ 24 Hoffman concluded that plaintiff did not have any past 25 relevant work to compare and proceeded to step five. 1 Thereafter noting that if plaintiff was capable of performing 2 a full range of light work, a finding of no disability would 3 be compelled by the Medical-Vocational Guidelines, or the 4 so-called grids, set forth in the Commissioner's regulations, 5 specifically Rule 202.20, but concluded that because of the 6 existence of additional limitations, exertional and 7 non-exertional, that would erode the job base upon which the 8 grids are predicated, contacted and consulted with a 9 vocational expert. 10 After posing a hypothetical to the vocational 11 expert that tracked the RFC finding, she concluded based upon 12 the vocational expert's testimony that plaintiff is capable 13 of performing work that is available in the national economy, 14 citing as representative positions those of router, an 15 automatic car wash attendant, and small products assembler, 16 and concluded that plaintiff is, therefore, not disabled. 17 As you know, the Court's function is to determine 18 whether correct, legal principles were applied and the 19 resulting determination is supported by substantial evidence, 20 defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind would 21 find sufficient to support a conclusion. 22 As the Second Circuit has noted, this is an 23 extremely deferential standard that was noted in Brault 24 versus Social Security Administration Commissioner, 683 F.3d 25 443, from June of 2012, and reiterated in Schillo v. 1 Kijakazi, 31 F.4th 64, from April 6, 2022. In the Brault 2 case the Second Circuit noted significantly that under the 3 standard to be applied, if an ALJ finds a fact, that fact can 4 be rejected only if a reasonable fact-finder would have to 5 conclude otherwise. 6 In this case plaintiff raises three basic 7 arguments. She argues that the residual functional capacity 8 was not supported, attacking both the physical and the mental 9 components. Secondly, she argues that the Administrative Law 10 Judge's analysis of the medical opinions and the record is 11 flawed and inconsistent with the governing regulations. And 12 third, she challenges the analysis of her subjective 13 complaints as not being supported by substantial evidence. 14 Of course, the first task for an Administrative Law 15 Judge is to determine a claimant's RFC, which represents a 16 finding of the range of tasks she is capable of performing 17 notwithstanding her impairments. Tankizi versus Commissioner 18 of Social Security, 521 F.App'x 29, at 33, Second Circuit 19 2013, and is also addressed in 20 CFR Section 416.945(a). 20 An RFC represents the claimant's maximum ability to 21 perform sustained work activities in an ordinary setting on a 22 regular and continuing basis, meaning eight hours a day for 23 five days a week, or an equivalent schedule. An RFC, of 24 course, is informed by consideration of all relevant medical 25 and other elements and to be upheld must be supported by 1 substantial evidence. 2 In this case the RFC finding turns primarily, 3 although not exclusively, on the medical opinions in the 4 record. Plaintiff challenges, as I indicated, both the 5 physical and mental aspects of the RFC. When medical 6 evidence is assessed by an Administrative Law Judge in cases 7 where applications were filed after March of 2017, the 8 so-called new regulations control. Under those regulations 9 an ALJ no longer defers or gives any specific evidentiary 10 weight, including controlling weight, to any medical opinion 11 or prior administrative medical findings, including from a 12 claimant's medical sources. Instead, the ALJ must consider 13 those opinions using the relevant factors and specifically 14 must address and consider the factors of supportability and 15 consistency of those medical opinions. The ALJ must 16 articulate how persuasive he or she finds each medical 17 opinion and must explain how he or she considered the 18 supportability and consistency of those medical opinions. 19 The other factors must be considered, but the ALJ is not 20 required to explain how he or she considered those factors as 21 appropriate in any particular case. 22 In this case the physical components of the RFC 23 were explained by the Administrative Law Judge at pages 16 24 and 17 of her decision. She based the physical components of 25 the RFC on state prior administrative findings of 1 Dr. Ahmed at 6A and Dr. Saeed at 3A. They are extremely 2 similar. The only difference comes in the ability to climb 3 ladders, ropes, and scaffolds; Dr. Ahmed opined never, 4 Dr. Saeed occasionally, which is consistent with the RFC, and 5 therefore supports it. 6 The ALJ rejected the environmental limitations set 7 forth based upon the fact that she did not find and nor did 8 the doctors find plaintiff's respiratory condition to be 9 severe. The Administrative Law Judge did add greater 10 manipulative limitations to accommodate the carpal tunnel 11 syndrome treatment that plaintiff experienced after the 12 issuance of those prior administrative findings. That error, 13 however, did not harm the plaintiff. The RFC does include 14 manipulative limitations limiting plaintiff to frequently 15 handle, finger, and feel with bilateral hands. 16 The opinions of state agency consultants such as 17 Dr. Ahmed and Dr. Saeed can provide substantial evidence to 18 support an RFC determination. Woytowicz v. Commissioner of 19 Social Security, 2016 WL 6427787, from the Northern District 20 of New York, October 5, 2016; and Angela B. versus 21 Commissioner of Social Security, 2020 WL 17247244, from the 22 Western District of New York, November 28, 2022. 23 The staleness argument that the plaintiff has 24 raised, I find no merit. It depends upon evidence that there 25 would have been significant deterioration in plaintiff's 1 condition since the issuance of those opinions. The only 2 change that I could discern concerned the ability to 3 manipulate with the hands. There doesn't appear to be 4 evidence of significant deterioration of plaintiff's cervical 5 condition and the limitations associated with those. So I 6 find that the plaintiff has failed to carry her burden to 7 prove greater physical restrictions than those set forth in 8 the RFC is warranted. 9 Turning to the mental component, the RFC, it should 10 be noted, is extremely limiting. The residual functional 11 capacity limits plaintiff in terms of mental capability as 12 follows. The claimant should work at simple, routine and 13 repetitive tasks. The claimant should work in a low-stress 14 job defined as occasional decision-making, occasional 15 judgment required, and occasional changes in the work 16 setting. The claimant should work at goal-orientated work 17 rather than production pace work. Claimant should have 18 occasional contact with co-workers, supervisors, and the 19 public, but would be able to interact with others 20 sufficiently in order to complete a brief training period 21 running from one to two days up to thirty days. Again, 22 extremely limiting. 23 The mental component is based upon the medical 24 opinions of Dr. Shapiro, and I'll outline these in a minute, 25 to some degree Licensed Clinical Social Worker Fazzino and 1 Nurse Practitioner Blodgett, and somewhat on opinions from 2 state agency consultants Dr. Juriga and Dr. Kamin. 3 The first of those, of course, is Dr. Jeanne 4 Shapiro. Her opinion is dated September 23, 2020, and it 5 appears at 356 to 360 of the record. The medical source 6 statement finds basically no limitations in the ability to 7 understand, remember, or apply simple or complex directions 8 or instructions, or using reason and judgment to make 9 work-related decisions. Dr. Shapiro finds a mild to moderate 10 limitation in plaintiff's ability to interact adequately with 11 supervisors, co-workers, and the public. She finds that 12 plaintiff may be mildly to moderately limited in her ability 13 to sustain concentration and perform a task at a consistent 14 pace depending on her level of anxiety. She further finds 15 that plaintiff is moderately limited in her ability to 16 sustain an ordinary routine and regular attendance at work, 17 and moderately limited in her ability to regulate emotions, 18 control behavior, and maintain well-being. 19 This opinion was discussed by the Administrative 20 Law Judge at page 17 and found to be supported by the medical 21 evidence in the record, including exam findings which show 22 improvement with treatment and provides substantial support 23 for the RFC. 24 The second opinion in the record, there are two, 25 one from Dr. M. Juriga dated October 5, 2020, and from Dr. E. 1 Kamin from October 16, 2020. These are found at Exhibits 3A 2 and 6A, respectively. They find that plaintiff's mental 3 condition is not severe. That's at pages 98 and 112. 4 The ALJ found that those determinations were 5 somewhat consistent with benign evaluations of Dr. Shapiro 6 and other exams, but did not find it to be consistent with 7 plaintiff's need for ongoing mental health treatment. That's 8 discussed at page 17. I find no error. Interestingly, in 9 assessing the so-called B criteria under the step three 10 determination in the regulations, Dr. Kamin found no 11 limitations in plaintiff's ability to understand, remember or 12 apply information, mild limitation in the ability to interact 13 with others, mild limitation in concentration, persistence 14 and pace, and mild limitations on the adapting and managing 15 oneself. Similarly, Dr. Juriga found no limitation in the 16 understanding, remembering, and application of information, 17 mild in interacting with others, mild in concentration, 18 persistence and maintaining pace, and mild in the ability to 19 adapt or manage oneself. 20 And although the findings at step three, the B 21 findings, do not necessarily represent the residual 22 functional capacity or translate in that regard, they do 23 provide support for the ALJ's determination. 24 The other opinions in the record that speak to 25 plaintiff's mental condition, there were two; one is from 1 Nurse Practitioner Joshua Blodgett from January 11, 2021, 2 that appears at 740 and 742 of the Administrative Transcript, 3 and Therapist Anthony Fazzino from December 21, 2020, 4 appearing at 737 to 739 of the Administrative Transcript. 5 They're nearly identical. They're extremely restricting. 6 Nurse Practitioner Blodgett, after reciting the symptoms that 7 plaintiff experiences, found that plaintiff is unable to meet 8 competitive standards in four areas under the category mental 9 abilities and aptitude needed to do unskilled work, and no 10 useful ability to function under that category in eight 11 subcategories. 12 He also found under mental abilities and aptitude 13 needed to do particular types of jobs, that plaintiff is 14 unable to meet competitive standards in three areas, and for 15 explanation stated the following, under the first 16 subcategory: Alicia has limitations in her ability to 17 remember, maintain periods of work function if any at all, 18 trouble with follow through and struggles to manage symptoms 19 consistently. And under the second: Alicia's mental health 20 symptoms interfere with her ability to do or achieve any 21 work-related functions. 22 Therapist Fazzino in his medical source statement 23 found that plaintiff is unable to meet competitive standards 24 in four areas under mental abilities and aptitude needed to 25 do unskilled work and no useful ability to function in eight, 1 stating that plaintiff has attempted in the past but is 2 limited by ability to remember, stay on task, follow through, 3 and manage symptoms effectively. He also found that 4 plaintiff is unable to meet competitive standards in three 5 areas, and seriously limited, but not precluded, in two under 6 mental abilities and aptitude needed to do particular types 7 of jobs. 8 The Administrative Law Judge considered these 9 opinions, found them somewhat persuasive, page 17, but found 10 them to be inconsistent with medical exams. She noted that 11 there are no treatment notes from Therapist Fazzino. 12 Plaintiff argues that this creates an obvious gap in the 13 record that required the Administrative Law Judge to fill. 14 It was noted, however, that there were periodic reviews in 15 the record which show some of Therapist Fazzino's treatment. 16 And I note at page 36 and again at 55, plaintiff's counsel 17 during the two hearings stated that the record was complete. 18 I conclude that there was no obvious gap. And in any event, 19 the argument was waived when counsel stated that the record 20 was complete. Gilbert H. v. Saul, 2020 WL 6146596, from the 21 Northern District of New York, October 20, 2020. 22 The record in my view is adequate for the decision, 23 for the Administration Law Judge's decision. There are 24 mental health findings of not only Nurse Practitioner 25 Blodgett, but several other treatment providers of the 1 plaintiff. And plaintiff has failed to show how obtaining 2 Therapist Fazzino's notes would have changed the result. 3 Reices-Colon versus Astrue, 523 F.App'x 796, from the Second 4 Circuit, May 2nd, 2013. 5 I have reviewed carefully plaintiff's treatment 6 records in the Administrative Transcript. There are 7 treatment records from several providers, including Prime 8 Care Medical Center where she saw Nurse Practitioner 9 Cassandra Hunsberger; Central New York Spine and Pain 10 Medicine, LLC, Dr. Young Seo primarily; Oswego Health where 11 plaintiff saw several nurse practitioners and appears to be 12 perhaps her primary health provider; Oswego Hospital; Liberty 13 Resources, including Therapist Fazzino and Nurse Practitioner 14 Blodgett, and Crouse Medical Practice Neurology. 15 A careful review of those records reveals that they 16 consistently show primarily a lack of significant 17 psychological issues. Typical of many entries is one from 18 Central New York Spine and Pain, at 346: Plaintiff awake and 19 oriented, normal ST, short term, and LT, long term, memory, 20 normal mood and affect. That's from May of 2020. Oswego 21 Hospital note, normal affect at 598, 630 and 460. From 22 Liberty, Nurse Practitioner Blodgett, at 659, affect full and 23 congruent, judgment, insight unremarkable. And that's 24 typical of several other notations from CNY Spine. Typical 25 is denies anxiety, depression and suicidal ideation. That's 1 at 730 from November 16, 2020. From Oswego, at 772 and 791, 2 grossly oriented to person, time and place, judgment, insight 3 and memory intact, normal mood, appropriate affect. And 4 these are typical of many, many, many entries in the 5 plaintiff's treatment records. I recognize that some of 6 these are from providers that were of plaintiff's physical 7 condition, but nonetheless, they are observations that the 8 Administrative Law Judge is entitled to take into 9 consideration. 10 The medical evidence, including especially 11 Dr. Shapiro, provides adequate support for the RFC, including 12 the limitations in concentration, persistence and pace, which 13 are entirely consistent with simple work, goal-oriented. 14 Dr. Shapiro's opinion is consistent with the limited mental 15 aspect of the RFC. Diakogiannis v. Astrue, 975 F.Supp. 2d, 16 299, from the Western District of New York, September 30, 17 2013. Tamara M. versus Saul, 2021 WL 1198359 from the 18 Northern District of New York, March 30, 2021. And see also 19 Lander v. Colvin, 2016 WL 1211283, from the Western District 20 of New York, and that is from March 29, 2016. 21 The issue of contact, the probationary period 22 contact is included in the RFC. It is supported for the most 23 part by Dr. Shapiro who found moderate, mild to moderate 24 limitation. Moderate limitation is consistent with frequent 25 in terms of the meaning of the term in Dr. Shapiro's report, 1 and this is consistent with Sharon R. v. Kijakazi, 2021 WL 2 3884257, from the Northern District of New York, August 31, 3 2021. It is also supported in -- Sharon R. cites also to 4 another case that is supportive, Jodi B. v. Commissioner of 5 Social Security, 2021 WL 3682736, from the Western District 6 of New York, August 19, 2021. 7 In my view, Dr. Shapiro and the vocational expert 8 together support the additional interaction with supervisors 9 and co-workers during the probationary period. 10 So, in sum, I find that the residual functional 11 capacity is supported by substantial evidence and the 12 Administrative Law Judge correctly assessed the medical 13 opinions in the record. 14 The last argument surrounds evaluation of the 15 plaintiff's symptoms, what we used to call credibility. An 16 ALJ obviously must take into account subjective complaints of 17 a plaintiff in making his or her step five disability 18 analysis, but is not required to unquestionably accept any 19 subjective testimony by a claimant. Rather, the RFC, the ALJ 20 retains the discretion to evaluate the claimant's subjective 21 testimony, including testimony concerning pain or otherwise; 22 Mimms v. Heckler, 750 F.3d 180, at 185 to 186, Second 23 Circuit, 1984. In deciding how to exercise that discretion, 24 the ALJ must consider a variety of factors which would 25 ordinarily inform the question of credibility in any context, 1 including the plaintiff's believability, his or her 2 motivation, and the medical evidence in the record. In doing 3 so, an ALJ must reach an independent judgment concerning the 4 actual extent of limitations suffered by the plaintiff and 5 its impact on her ability to perform work functions. 6 Notably, an ALJ's determination as to a claimant's subjective 7 complaint is entitled to considerable deference. Edward J. 8 v. Kijakazi, 2022 WL 4536257, Northern District of New York, 9 September 28, 2022. See you also Virginia D.F. versus 10 Commissioner of Social Security, 2022 WL 4652361, Northern 11 District of New York, August 19, 2022. 12 The plaintiff testified that she is unable to work 13 due to her mental condition. That's at page 57. The 14 Administrative Law Judge considered in addressing the issue 15 of credibility plaintiff's treatment notes; relatively robust 16 activities of daily living, her ability to cook, clean, do 17 laundry, socialize; the fact that as treatment notes reflect 18 often denied psychiatric or psychological problems; the fact 19 that treatment notes showed improvement with treatment; and 20 plaintiff's desire to reduce her medications. In dealing 21 with her neck pain, the objective evidence was relatively 22 modest. An MRI showed modest findings of a bulging disc. 23 The EMG studies showed no radiculopathy. The carpal tunnel 24 syndrome claim is not supported by testing, with findings of 25 normal grip, strength and so forth. 1 In sum, I find that the Administrative Law Judge's 2 determination and how she exercised her discretion is 3 supported by substantial evidence. The bottom line is that 4 this is a deferential standard of review. I find that the 5 determination is supported by substantial evidence and that 6 the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate to the Court that no 7 reasonable fact-finder could find the facts as the 8 Administrative Law Judge in this case. So I will grant 9 judgment on the pleadings to the defendant and order 10 dismissal of plaintiff's complaint. 11 Thank you both for excellent presentations. I hope 12 you have happy holidays. 13 * * * 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Decision - 21-cv-1154 20

1 2 CERTIFICATION 3 4 I, EILEEN MCDONOUGH, RPR, CRR, Federal Official 5 Realtime Court Reporter, in and for the United States 6 District Court for the Northern District of New York, 7 do hereby certify that pursuant to Section 753, Title 28, 8 United States Code, that the foregoing is a true and correct 9 transcript of the stenographically reported proceedings held 10 in the above-entitled matter and that the transcript page 11 format is in conformance with the regulations of the 12 Judicial Conference of the United States. 13 14 15 16 Leen MeDoneugh 17 EILEEN MCDONOUGH, RPR, CRR Federal Official Court Reporter 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25