govinfo:USCOURTS-njd-2_25-cv-01861-0

1 
 
NOT FOR PUBLICATION 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 
 
 
S.W., 
 
Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
 
COMMISSIONER OF 
SOCIAL SECURITY, 
Defendant. 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
 
          Civil Action No. 25-01861 
OPINION 
CHESLER, District Judge 
This matter comes before the Court on the appeal by Plaintiff S.W. (“Plaintiff”) of the 
final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) determining that she 
was not disabled under the Social Security Act (the “Act”). This Court exercises jurisdiction 
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and, having considered the submissions of the parties without 
oral argument, pursuant to L. CIV. R. 78.1(b), finds that the Commissioner’s decision will be 
vacated and remanded. 
In brief, this appeal arises from Plaintiff’s application for disability insurance benefits, 
alleging disability beginning February 1, 2023.  A hearing was held before ALJ Karen Shelton (the 
“ALJ”) on September 5, 2024 and the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision on December 18, 2024. 
After the Appeals Council denie d Plaintiff’s request for review, the ALJ’s decision became the 
Commissioner’s final decision, and Plaintiff filed this appeal.  
In decision of  December 18, 2024, the ALJ found, at step two , that Plaintiff ha d several 
Case 2:25-cv-01861-SRC     Document 9     Filed 04/28/26     Page 1 of 4 PageID: <pageID>
2 
 
severe impairments, including lumbar spine degenerative disc disease, osteoarthritis of the right 
knee with patellofemoral syndrome, depression, and anxiety.  At step three , the ALJ found that 
Plaintiff’s condition did not meet the requirements of any of the Listings of Impairments.  At step 
four, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff ha d the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform 
light work with specific exertional and non- exertional limitations, and that Plaintiff had no past 
relevant work.  Finally, at step five, the ALJ found that there are jobs that exist in significant 
numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff could perform. 
On appeal, Plaintiff argues that the Commissioner’s decision should be reversed,  and the 
case remanded, for two reasons.  First, Plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred by failing to evaluate 
the persuasiveness of Dr. Gardener’s opinion, which was more restrictive than the ALJ’s final RFC 
determination.  Second, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred by failing to properly address Plaintiff’s 
wife’s third-party function report in determining that Plaintiff’s statements were inconsistent with 
the evidence of record.  
In reviewing the ALJ’s determination, this Court must affirm the Commis sioner’s final 
decision if it is “supported by substantial evidence.”  42 U.S.C. § 405(g).   “Courts are not 
permitted to re -weigh the evidence or impose their own factual determinations.”  Chandler v. 
Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 667 F.3d 356, 359 (3d Cir. 2011).  Further, on appeal, Plaintiff carries twin 
burdens of proof.  First, Plaintiff bears the burden at the first four steps of the analysis of 
demonstrating how her  impairments, whether individually or in combination, amount to a 
qualifying disability. Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 n.5 (1987).  Second, Plaintiff bears the 
burden of showing not  merely that the Commissioner erred, but also that the error was harmful.  
Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 396, 409 (2009) .  At the first four steps, this requires that Plaintiff 
show that, but for the error, she might have proven her disability.  In other words, when appealing 
Case 2:25-cv-01861-SRC     Document 9     Filed 04/28/26     Page 2 of 4 PageID: <pageID>
3 
 
a decision at the first four steps, if Plaintiff cannot articulate the basis for a decision in her  favor, 
based on the existing record, she is quite unlikely to show that an error was harmful. 
Plaintiff argues first that the ALJ erred because she failed to evaluate the persuasiveness of 
the opinion of consultative psychologist  Dr. Gardner.  ( Pl.’s Br.. at 12) .  The ALJ assessed that 
Plaintiff had the RFC to perform light work with the following restrictions:  
Occasional ramps/stairs, no ladders/ropes/scaffolds, frequent balance, stoop, 
occasional kneel crouch crawl. No unprotected heights or hazardous machinery. 
Able to understand, remember, and carry out simple, repetitive tasks in a routine 
environment with few changes.  Can work for hours before needing a standard 15 
minute break. Can have frequent contact with supervisors and coworkers in 
proximity and occasional contact with the public. 
 
(Tr. at 20).  Plaintiff correctly notes that in formulating this RFC, the ALJ failed to reconcile or 
explain her view of the medical opinion of Dr. Gardner.  
 Dr. Gardner conducted a psychiatric evaluation of Plaintiff in December of 2023 and 
assessed that Plaintiff had “moderate” limitations in  “maintaining appropriate social interaction  
with . . . coworkers, and supervisors.”  (Id. at 579).  Another medical provider, agency reviewing 
psychologist Dr. Meza, on reconsideration, came to a different conclusion.  Dr. Meza concluded 
that Plaintiff only had “mild” limitations in his ability to “interact with others.”  ( Id. at 82).  It 
appears from the ALJ’s final RFC determination, that she ultimately found Dr. Meza’s “mild” 
assessment more persuasive than Dr. Gardner’s “moderate” assessment, as the RFC states that 
Plaintiff “[c]an have frequent contact with supervisors and coworkers  in proximity.”  (Id. at 20).  
As Plaintiff contends, the ALJ fail ed to explain how she reconcile d Dr. Gardner’s determination 
of “moderate” impairment with Dr. Meza’s differing opinion and the ALJ’s RFC determination.   
While the ALJ was  certainly not required to adopt the opinion of Dr. Gardner, she was 
required to explain how she concluded it was not, in fact, persuasive.  She failed to do so.  The 
Case 2:25-cv-01861-SRC     Document 9     Filed 04/28/26     Page 3 of 4 PageID: <pageID>
4 
 
ALJ did mention Dr. Gardner’s examination of Plaintiff and  discussed some of the material 
covered in that consultation, but did not  assess the persuasiveness of Dr. Gardner’s medical 
opinion.  ( See Tr. at 21- 22).  In failing to conduct a persuasiveness analysis, the ALJ failed to 
satisfy the relevant regulations.  See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(b) (stating that an ALJ must articulate 
“how persuasive [the ALJ] find[s] all of the medical opinions  and all of the prior administrative 
medical findings in [the]  case record.”).  Further,  the ALJ did not try to square Dr. Gardner’s 
opinion with the opinion of Dr. Meza, nor with her RFC determination.  Because the ALJ ignored 
countervailing evidence and failed to resolve the conflict between competing evidence here, she 
did not comply with Third Circuit law, and her opinion is not supported by substantial evidence.  
See Kent v. Schweiker , 710 F.2d 110, 114 (3d Cir. 1983)  (“A single piece of evidence will not 
satisfy the substantiality test if the Secretary ignores, or fails to resolve, a conflict created by 
countervailing evidence.”). 1 
For the reasons set forth above, this Court finds that the Commissioner's decision is not 
supported by substantial evidence and the decision of the Commissioner is vacated and remanded 
for further proceedings in accordance with this Opinion. As this matter  is remanded, the Court 
need not reach Plaintiff's additional arguments. 
 
    
 
    s/ Stanley R Chesler                   
          STANLEY R. CHESLER, U.S.D.J.             
Dated: April 28th, 2026
 
 
1 The Court also notes that Plaintiff aptly makes this argument, and the Government essentially ignores it.  The 
Court takes this silence from the Government as concession on this point, which further bolsters the Court’s 
assessment of the ALJ’s error in this case. 
Case 2:25-cv-01861-SRC     Document 9     Filed 04/28/26     Page 4 of 4 PageID: <pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight