Matthew H. v. Commissioner of Social Security

• Court: District Court, N.D. New York
• Decided: March 19, 2026
• Docket: 6:24-cv-01030
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ________________________________________

MATTHEW H.,

Plaintiff,

v. 6:24-CV-01030 (ML) COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant. ________________________________________

APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL:

LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN R. DOLSON PLLC STEVEN R. DOLSON, ESQ. Counsel for the Plaintiff 6320 Fly Road - Suite 201 East Syracuse, New York 13057

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION HUGH DUN RAPPAPORT, ESQ. Counsel for the Defendant Special Assistant U.S. Attorney 6401 Security Boulevard Baltimore, Maryland 21235

MIROSLAV LOVRIC, United States 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, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), are cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings.1 Oral argument was heard

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. in connection with those motions on March 18, 2026, 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 was supported by substantial evidence, providing further detail regarding my reasoning and addressing the specific issues raised by 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 ORDERED as follows: 1) Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 17) is DENIED. 2) Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 21) is GRANTED. 3) The Commissioner’s decision denying Plaintiff Social Security benefits is AFFIRMED. 4) Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED. 5) The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment, based upon this determination, DISMISSING Plaintiff's Complaint in its entirety and closing this case. Dated: March 19, 2026 Binghamton, New York

Miroslav Lovric United States Magistrate Judge Northern District of New York

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------x MATTHEW H.,

vs. 6:24-CV-1030

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant. --------------------------------------------x Transcript of a Decision held during a Videoconference on March 18, 2026, the HONORABLE MIROSLAV LOVRIC, United States Magistrate Judge, Presiding.

A P P E A R A N C E S (By Video) For Plaintiff: STEVEN R. DOLSON, ESQ. Attorney at Law 6320 Fly Road - Suite 201 East Syracuse, New York 13057

For Defendant: SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION Office of the General Counsel 6401 Security Boulevard Baltimore, Maryland 21235 BY: HUGH DUN RAPPAPORT, ESQ.

Jodi L. Hibbard, RPR, CSR, CRR Official United States Court Reporter 100 South Clinton Street Syracuse, New York 13261-7367 (315) 234-8547 1 (All present by Video.) 2 THE COURT: Well, the Court's going to begin its 3 decision, reasoning, and analysis as follows. 4 Plaintiff has commenced this proceeding pursuant to 5 Title 42 United States Code Section 405(g) to challenge the 6 adverse determination by the Commissioner of Social Security 7 finding that he was -- finding that the plaintiff was not 8 disabled at the relevant times and therefore ineligible for 9 the benefits that plaintiff sought. 10 By way of background, the court notes as follows: 11 Plaintiff was born in 1993. Plaintiff is currently 12 approximately 32 years of age. Plaintiff was approximately 13 28 years of age on the date of his application for benefits. 14 At the time of his administrative hearing on 15 November 17, 2023, plaintiff lived with his parents. He is a 16 high school graduate who attended two years of college. 17 Plaintiff work -- plaintiff's work history, I 18 should say, includes jobs as an office assistant in an 19 insurance brokerage and most recently, as an assistant golf 20 pro at a country club. Plaintiff testified that he has not 21 worked since September of 2021 due to the functional 22 limitations imposed by his ankylosing spondylitis, which is 23 an inflammatory arthritis of the lumbar spine that causes 24 aching pain and makes it difficult to walk or sit for 25 extended periods. Plaintiff also experiences joint pain and 1 neuropathy caused by an autoimmune disorder. Plaintiff's 2 primary care provider prescribed medication for anxiety and 3 depression, but plaintiff had not received any specialized 4 mental health treatment after his alleged onset date. 5 Procedurally, the Court notes as follows: 6 Plaintiff applied for Title II and Title XVI benefits on 7 February 2nd, of 2022, alleging an onset date of September 5 8 of 2021. In support of his application for benefits, 9 plaintiff claims disability based on a number of physical and 10 mental health impairments, including autoimmune hepatitis, 11 ankylosing spondylitis, Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome, 12 neuropathy, and anxiety. 13 Administrative Law Judge Jeremy Eldred conducted a 14 hearing on November 17, 2023 to address plaintiff's 15 applications for benefits. ALJ Eldred issued an unfavorable 16 decision on December 20th of 2023. That decision became the 17 final determination of the Agency on June 26th of 2024, when 18 the Appeals Council denied plaintiff's request for review. 19 This civil action was commenced on August 21 of 2024, and it 20 is timely. 21 In his December 20th, 2023 decision at issue in 22 this case, the ALJ first determined that plaintiff met the 23 insured status requirements of the Social Security Act 24 through September 30th of 2023, and then the ALJ commenced 25 the familiar five-step test for determining disability. 1 At step one, the ALJ concluded that plaintiff had 2 not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged 3 onset date of September 5 of 2021. 4 At step two, the ALJ concluded that plaintiff had 5 the following severe impairments: First, neuropathy; next, 6 alcoholic liver disease; and third, degenerative disease of 7 the cervical and lumbar spine. 8 At step three, the ALJ concluded that plaintiff did 9 not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met 10 or medically equaled the severity of any listed impairments. 11 In making this determination, the ALJ expressly considered 12 Listings 1.15, dealing with disorders of the skeletal spine; 13 1.16, dealing with lumbar spinal stenosis; Listing 5.05, 14 dealing with chronic liver disease; and Listing 11.14, 15 dealing with peripheral neuropathy. 16 Next, the ALJ determined that plaintiff has the 17 residual functional capacity, also referred to as RFC, to 18 perform light work occupations that require no more than 19 frequent stooping, kneeling, crouching, and crawling. 20 At step four, the ALJ found that plaintiff is 21 unable to perform any past relevant work. 22 At step five, the ALJ applied the Medical- 23 Vocational Guidelines to determine that plaintiff's postural 24 limitations did not significantly erode the occupational base 25 of light work, so there were jobs existing in significant 1 numbers in the national economy that plaintiff can perform. 2 Accordingly, the ALJ found that plaintiff was not 3 disabled from his alleged onset date through the date of the 4 ALJ's decision. 5 Turning now to the plaintiff's arguments in this 6 appeal. As you know, this court's functional role in this 7 case is limited and extremely deferential. The court must 8 determine whether correct legal principles were applied and 9 whether the determination is supported by substantial 10 evidence, which is defined as such relevant evidence as a 11 reasonable mind would find sufficient to support a 12 conclusion. As the Second Circuit noted in Brault v. Social 13 Security Administration Commissioner, that's found at 683 14 F.3d 443, a 2012 case, therein the Second Circuit stated that 15 this standard is demanding, more so than the clearly 16 erroneous standard. The Second Circuit noted in Brault that 17 once there is a finding of fact, that fact can be rejected 18 only if a reasonable factfinder would have to conclude 19 otherwise. 20 Plaintiff raises two primary contentions in these 21 proceedings. 22 First, plaintiff argues that the ALJ's RFC 23 determination failed to account for plaintiff's medically 24 determinable mental health impairments. 25 Second, plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred by 1 relying on stale consulting opinions and failed to consider 2 objective medical evidence supportive of disability. 3 The court turns to its analysis, reasoning, and 4 decision. This court finds that substantial evidence 5 supports the ALJ's evaluation of the evidence addressing 6 plaintiff's physical and mental impairments, including the 7 opinion and testimonial evidence, for the reasons set forth 8 in defendant's brief, and the court also adds the following 9 reasoning and analysis to those arguments. 10 Addressing plaintiff's first argument, this court 11 finds that the ALJ appropriately considered plaintiff's mild 12 mental health limitations as part of his RFC analysis, even 13 though the ALJ did not include any specific mental health 14 limitations in the RFC determination. 15 When formulating a claimant's RFC, the ALJ must 16 consider both his severe and nonsevere impairments. However, 17 an ALJ is not required to include specific RFC limitations 18 corresponding to each of the claimant's nonsevere 19 impairments. 20 Likewise, the courts in this circuit have 21 consistently found that an ALJ's identification of a mild 22 mental health limitation at step two of the sequential 23 evaluation does not always require a corresponding functional 24 limitation in the RFC. A very thorough analysis of this 25 topic can be found in District Judge Suddaby's decision in 1 Donna L. v. Commissioner of Social Security, that's found at 2 5:23-CV-655, and that is a District Judge Suddaby and 3 Magistrate Judge Dancks decision, and that is also found at 4 2024 WL 3738067, at *2, and that's a Northern District 5 New York August 9, 2024 decision, and therein, the district 6 judge, Judge Suddaby, adopted the report-recommendation by 7 Magistrate Judge Dancks. 8 In this case, the ALJ found at step two that 9 plaintiff's anxiety, depression, and panic attacks were 10 nonsevere because they caused no more than "mild limitations" 11 in any of the four functional areas. Those four areas being: 12 One, understanding, remembering, or applying information; 13 two, interacting with others; three, concentrating, 14 persisting, and maintaining pace; and four, adapting or 15 managing oneself. 16 This two step analysis included a detailed review 17 of plaintiff's mental health records, including a history of 18 conservative mental health treatment administered by his 19 primary care provider during the relevant period, minimal 20 treatment with mental health specialists, a consultative 21 psychiatric examination, and plaintiff's testimony regarding 22 his mental health symptoms. 23 As part of his separate RFC analysis, the ALJ 24 discussed plaintiff's testimonial assessment of the 25 functional limitations imposed by his anxiety and depression, 1 the exacerbation of those symptoms by his prescription 2 medication, the available mental health opinions from 3 nonexamining and examining consultants, and relevant mental 4 health examination notes. At the close of this analysis, the 5 ALJ elected not to include any specific mental health 6 limitations in the RFC determination. 7 Therefore, this court finds that the ALJ satisfied 8 his requirements to consider plaintiff's nonsevere 9 impairments when formulating the RFC and the ALJ marshaled 10 substantial evidence to support his conclusion that the 11 plaintiff's mental health impairments did not impose any 12 functional limitations not otherwise addressed in the RFC. 13 Moving now to plaintiff's second argument, the ALJ 14 found the opinions of nonexamining state agency consultants 15 Dr. G. Zito and Dr. C. Krist and the opinion of consultative 16 physical examiner Dr. Rita Figueroa to be persuasive 17 regarding plaintiff's physical RFC. Plaintiff contends that 18 these opinions, particularly those of Dr. Zito and Dr. Krist, 19 were stale by the time of the ALJ's disability determination 20 because, as plaintiff argues, they did not have access to 21 subsequent treatment notes, particularly imaging reports of 22 plaintiff's lumbar and cervical spine and electromyography 23 studies of plaintiff's upper and lower extremities from early 24 2023. 25 The court notes a medical opinion can become stale 1 if there is a documented deterioration in the claimant's 2 condition or functioning that raises doubts about the 3 opinion's reliability. Plaintiff contends that these more 4 recent records are supportive of his disability claim, but 5 plaintiff has not demonstrated any material change in his 6 condition after the consulting opinions were issued. 7 Although the ALJ's decision does not specifically 8 reference these 2023 imaging reports, it does discuss 9 contemporaneously -- contemporaneous, I should say, neurology 10 and rheumatology notes reflecting physician assessments that 11 plaintiff's functioning improved with treatment. The ALJ 12 also cited plaintiff's activity level during this time 13 period, that included working out at the gym five days per 14 week. Therefore, any error in not citing specific imaging 15 reports, this court would find, would be harmless. 16 In large measure, plaintiff's challenges to the 17 ALJ's evaluation of the opinion and testimonial evidence and 18 the resulting RFC determination are premised on a 19 disagreement over how the ALJ resolved arguably conflicting 20 evidence about plaintiff's functional limitations. It is not 21 sufficient that reasonable parties could interpret the 22 evidence differently, and it is not the function of this 23 reviewing court to reweigh the evidence. Therefore, this 24 court finds no justification to remand in this case. 25 As a result, and based upon this analysis, 1 plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied. 2 Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted. 3 Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed, and the Commissioner's 4 decision denying plaintiff benefits is hereby affirmed. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 C E R T I F I C A T I O N 2 3 I, JODI L. HIBBARD, RMR, CRR, CSR, 4 Official Court Reporter in and for the United States 5 District Court, Northern District of New York, DO 6 HEREBY CERTIFY that I have listened to and 7 transcribed the foregoing proceedings and that the 8 foregoing is a true and correct transcript thereof 9 to the best of my ability. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 s/Jodi L. Hibbard 17 ________________________________ 18 JODI L. HIBBARD, RMR, CRR, CSR Official U.S. Court Reporter 19 20 21 22 23 24 25