Corpus: 543,223 opinions ·
3,177 judges ·
newest 2026-06-23 · expanding
Coverage ↗
Opinion
govinfo:USCOURTS-nynd-5_24-cv-00796-1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_____________________________________________
Jerrie L. R. o/b/o D.L.C., a minor,
Plaintiff,
v. 5:24-CV-796
(FJS/MLK)
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
OLINSKY LAW GROUP HOWARD D. OLINSKY, ESQ.
250 South Clinton Street
Suite 210
Syracuse, New York 13202
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION FERGUS J. KAISER, ESQ.
OFFICE OF PROGRAM LITIGATION
Office 2
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, Maryland 21235
Attorneys for Defendant
SCULLIN, Senior Judge
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION
Pending before the Court are Magistrate Judge Katz's Report-Recommendation, see Dkt.
No. 13, Plaintiff's objections thereto, see Dkt. No. 14, and Defendant's response to Plaintiff's
objections, see Dkt. No. 15.
Case 5:24-cv-00796-FJS-MJK Document 16 Filed 02/25/26 Page 1 of 12
- 2 -
II. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff brought this action under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), on behalf
of her minor child, D.L.C. She sought judicial review of Defendant's final decision denying
D.L.C.'s application for benefits. This Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Katz for a
Report and Recommendation.
Both parties filed briefs, see Dkt. Nos. 9, 11, 12. After a thorough review of the parties'
arguments, the Administrative Record ("AR"), and the ALJ's decision denying D.L.C.'s
application, Magistrate Judge Katz issued a Report-Recommendation in which he recommended
that the Court deny Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings, grant Defendant's motion
for judgment on the pleadings, and affirm the Commissioner's decision. See generally Dkt. No.
13. Plaintiff timely filed objections to those recommendations, see Dkt. No. 14; and Defendant
filed a memorandum of law in opposition to Plaintiff's objections, see Dkt. No. 15.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Initial arguments before Magistrate Judge Katz
In her motion for judgment on the pleadings, Plaintiff argued that the Court should
reverse and remand the ALJ's decision because it was not supported by substantial evidence.
Specifically, Plaintiff argued that (1) the ALJ erred by relying on Drs. Dante Alexander's and T.
Bruni's medical opinions and that (2) the ALJ failed to adequately evaluate the evidence
concerning D.L.C.'s ability to care for herself. See Dkt. No.9, Plaintiff's Brief, at 2, 13-21. In his
motion for judgment on the pleadings, Defendant argued that (1) the ALJ properly assessed the
medical opinion evidence and that (2) substantial evidence supported the ALJs' determination
Case 5:24-cv-00796-FJS-MJK Document 16 Filed 02/25/26 Page 2 of 12
- 3 -
that D.L.C. had less than marked limitations in the domain of caring for herself. See Dkt. No. 11,
Defendant's Brief at 5-14.
After reviewing the parties' briefs, the ALJ's decision, and the Administrative Record,
Magistrate Judge Katz found that substantial evidence supported the ALJ's decision and,
therefore, recommended that the Court affirm that decision. See Dkt. No. 13 at 9. In particular,
he concluded that the ALJ's finding that the opinions of Dr. Alexander and Dr. Bruni were
persuasive was supported by substantial evidence in the record. He noted that the ALJ found that
Dr. Bruni's assessment was persuasive because it "'was supported by citations to the record' and
was 'generally consistent with the overall record and objective medical evidence.'" See id. at 11-
12 (quoting T. 18 (cleaned up)). With regard to Dr. Alexander's opinion, he noted that the ALJ
found that opinion persuasive "because Dr. Alexander's findings of 'considerable mental capacity'
[was] generally supported by the objective medical evidence and consistent with other evidence'
like 'school records detailing' D.L.C.'s 'academic functioning.'" See id. at 12 (quoting T. 18-19).
Magistrate Judge Katz concluded that substantial evidence in the record supported the
ALJ's decision. See id. In particular, Magistrate Judge Katz pointed to D.L.C.'s school records,
which showed "that she was not classified for special education during the relevant period, and
her grades were good." See id. (citing T. 20, 344). He noted that the record also "show[ed] that
one teacher found D.L.C. 'a pleasure to have in class,' and she got along with her teachers and
friends at school." See id. (citing T. 239, 344). Magistrate Judge Katz found that this evidence
was bolstered by D.L.C.'s apparently "good relationship with her grandmother, aunt, and
mother's boyfriend." See id. (citing T. 364-65). Finally, Magistrate Judge Katz found that,
"[a]lthough D.L.C.'s mother testified that D.L.C. is aggressive with her younger brother, medical
Case 5:24-cv-00796-FJS-MJK Document 16 Filed 02/25/26 Page 3 of 12
- 4 -
records indicate that the younger brother is 'very aggressive' and he 'targets and lashes out
against' D.L.C." See id. (comparing T. 46 with T. 448).
Magistrate Judge Katz also concluded that the ALJ's findings that D.L.C. had less than
marked limitations on her ability to (1) acquire and use information; (2) attend to, follow, and
understand age-appropriate directions; (3) adequately maintain appropriate social behavior; and
(4) care for herself, see id. at 12-13 (citing T. 16; 20-23), were "in line with Dr. Bruni's findings
and more restrictive than Dr. Alexander's findings"; and, "[a]s a result, substantial evidence
support[ed] the ALJ's decision." See id. at 13 (citing T. 73; 794-95).
B. Plaintiff's objections to Magistrate Judge Katz's Report-Recommendation
Plaintiff filed two objections to Magistrate Judge Katz's Report-Recommendation. See
Dkt. No. 14, Plaintiff's Objections. First, she asked the Court to decline to adopt Magistrate
Judge Katz's application of the substantial evidence standard and the decision in Camille v.
Colvin, 652 F. App'x 25, 28 n.4 (2d Cir. June 15, 2016) (Summary Order). See id. at 1-3.
Second, she requested that the Court decline to adopt Magistrate Judge Katz's application of
Cruz o/b/o M.M.W. v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 19-cv-9253, 2021 WL 4123969 (S.D.N.Y . Aug.
25, 2021) report and recommendation adopted, 2021 WL 4124225 (S.D.N.Y . Sept. 9, 2021). See
id. at 4-5.
To support her first objection, Plaintiff argued that Magistrate Judge Katz was correct
when he indicated that "the evidence left unaddressed by opinion evidence in this case was
available to the ALJ." See Dkt. No. 14 at 2. However, Plaintiff asserted that "the specific
evidence, which the ALJ was considering without the benefit of a fully-informed opinion, was
not easily interpreted." See id. (footnote omitted). In that regard, Plaintiff explained that this
Case 5:24-cv-00796-FJS-MJK Document 16 Filed 02/25/26 Page 4 of 12
- 5 -
case involved evidence that "was more complex than the evidence discussed in Russ"1 because it
"concerns a minor child, who had a plan to end her own life (Administrative Record ["AR"] at
531, 780; see also AR 463-64), who engaged in self-injurious behavior, specifically cutting (AR
544, 757), and who had clinical notes showing improvement (AR 468 [September 2021], 686
[January 2023]) while contemporaneously showing infliction of traumas (e.g. AR 450 [July
2021]) and suicidal thoughts/actions despite medication (AR 747, 757 [January 2023])." See id.
at 2-3.
Therefore, Plaintiff argued that "the substantial evidence standard, while generally
deferential, does not extend so far as to permit the Agency to proceed without soliciting further
evidence in matters such as this one." See id. at 3. Plaintiff explained that this was so because
"the cornerstone of the substantial evidence standard is not mere deference, but rather
reasonableness." See id. (citing Biestek v. Berryhill, 587 U.S. 97, 103 (2019) (defining
substantial evidence as, "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate
to support a conclusion." [emphasis added; quotation omitted]).
In addition, Plaintiff contended that "Camille v. Colvin, 652 Fed. App'x 25, 28 fn. 4 (2d
Cir. June 15, 2016) (summary order) does not address a general deference to an ALJ's
interpretation of evidence that was submitted subsequent to the opinion evidence of record." See
id. Instead, Plaintiff argued that "the Camille court's footnote more narrowly indicated that there
was no 'unqualified rule that a medical opinion is superseded by additional material in the
1 Plaintiff cited Russ v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 582 F. Supp. 3d 151 (S.D.N.Y . 2022) ("The ALJ thus
had no opinion from any medical source, treating or otherwise, as to the significance of the
additional records or their implication for Ms. Russ's functional abilities."), in her initial brief to
support her argument that "[o]ne significant sign that an ALJ's finding of sufficient evidence
lacks substantial evidence is where there was a development in the record, which the available
opinions did not consider." See Dkt. No. 9, Plaintiff's Brief, at 14.
Case 5:24-cv-00796-FJS-MJK Document 16 Filed 02/25/26 Page 5 of 12
- 6 -
record[.]'" See id. (quoting [Camille], 652 Fed. App'x at 28, fn. 4). Plaintiff explained that she
was "not requesting an unqualified rule, but rather . . . a narrower ruling providing that additional
material in the record, which is significantly complex (as that in Russ and in the matter at bar),
warrants development of the record instead of deference to the ALJ's layperson interpretation of
evidence." See id. In sum, Plaintiff contended that, "[a]t minimum, '[t]he ALJ's decision
[required] a greater discussion of Claimant's file before relying on the available evidence (or
deciding whether or not to solicit better-informed opinion evidence).'" See id. (quoting Dkt. No.
9 at 17).
Plaintiff's second objection related to Magistrate Judge Katz's dismissal of her second
argument as an impermissible request to reweigh the evidence relying on Cruz o/b/o M.M.W. v.
Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 19-cv-9253, 2021 WL 4123969, at *13 (S.D.N.Y . Aug. 25, 2021)
report and recommendation adopted, 2021 WL 4124225 (S.D.N.Y . Sept. 9, 2021)." See id. at 4
(citing Dkt. No. 13 R 18). Plaintiff argued that in Cruz the court "addressed a challenge by a
plaintiff who felt that the ALJ had 'downplayed' or minimized the significance of evidence,
which the plaintiff felt supported a finding of marked limitation in a domain (despite the child
obtaining A's and B's, behaving appropriately, and improving overall)." See id. (citing [Cruz,
2021 WL 4123969] at *14). Plaintiff stated that, in this case, however, she had "expressed
concern, not just over the weighing, but over the insufficiency of the ALJ's explanations and over
the ALJ's engagement in inappropriate speculation regarding the role of medication." See id.
(citing Dkt. No. 9 at 18; Dkt. No. 12 at 2) (footnotes omitted). Plaintiff explained that "'[i]n this
case the ALJ (i) provided an inadequate discussion of factors that SSR 09-7p deems relevant and
(ii) engaged in inappropriate speculation regarding the role of medication.'" See id. at 4 n.2.
Finally, she asserted that "[t]his is not a request for the Court to provide the analysis of evidence
Case 5:24-cv-00796-FJS-MJK Document 16 Filed 02/25/26 Page 6 of 12
- 7 -
on behalf of the Commissioner. It is well within the Court's authority to order a remand for
adequate explanation from the Agency/ALJ for the basis of their decision, despite the deferential
nature of substantial evidence review.'" See id. at n.3 (citing Elizabeth P . v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.,
3:20-CV-891 (CFH), 2022 WL 507367, at *5-6 (N.D.N.Y . Feb. 18, 2022)).
To summarize, it appears that Plaintiff appears is asking the Court to decline to adopt
Magistrate Judge Katz's comparison of this case to the case of Cruz o/b/o M.M.W., 2021 WL
4123969, and "to consider the ALJ's lack of explanation concerning the volume of issues that are
both present in this case and present in SSR 09-7p (Dkt. No. 9 at 20) and consider the ALJ's
layperson interpretation of the effects of the Claimant's medication (Dkt. No. 9 at 20-21)." See
id. at 4-5.
C. Defendant's response to Plaintiff's objections
In response to Plaintiff's objections, Defendant argues that "Plaintiff reasserts the
argument presented in their initial brief and reply brief that the cases Danielle B. v. Comm'r of
Soc. Sec., 19-cv-0306-TWD, 2020 WL 1933603 (N.D.N.Y . Apr. 22, 2020) and Russ v. Comm'r of
Soc. Sec., 582 F. Supp. 3d 151 (S.D.N.Y . 2022) mandated a finding that the ALJ's decision was
not supported by substantial evidence." See Dkt. No. 15 at 2 (citing Pl. Obj. 1-3; Pl. Br. 14-16;
Pl. Rep. 1). Defendant further states that "Plaintiff also regurgitates the argument that the ALJ
should have weighed the evidence of record differently." See id. (citing Pl. Obj. 4; Pl. Br. 17).
Therefore, Defendant contends that "this Court should subject the Report to only 'clear error'
review." See id. at 2-3 (citing Whipple, 2011 WL 1299337, at *3 ("When only general objections
are made to a [R&R], or where the objecting party merely reiterates the same arguments taken in
Case 5:24-cv-00796-FJS-MJK Document 16 Filed 02/25/26 Page 7 of 12
- 8 -
its original papers submitted to the magistrate judge, the Court reviews the report-
recommendation for clear error or manifest injustice") (emphasis added)).
With regard to Plaintiff's first objection that the ALJ should have been required to further
develop the record or include "'a greater discussion of [the] file,'' see id. at 3 (quoting Pl. Obj. 3),
because "the opinion evidence relied upon by the ALJ was essentially rendered invalid because
some additional evidence was entered into the record subsequent to the issuance of these
opinions," see id. at 3 (citing Pl. Obj. 1-3), Defendant asserts that, as Magistrate Judge Katz
properly explained, "'"[n]o case or regulation . . . imposes an unqualified rule that a medical
opinion is superseded by additional material in the record" when the new "evidence does not
raise doubts about' the opinion's reliability."'" See id. (quoting R&R 15) (citing Camille v.
Colvin, 652 Fed. App'x 25, 28 fn. 4 (2d Cir. June 15, 2016) (summary)). Moreover, Defendant
contends that Magistrate Judge Katz "specifically identified the evidence of record the ALJ
found consistent with this opinion evidence[.]" See id. (citing R&R 15 (citing Tr. 14 ("history of
emergency department visits or brief inpatient hospitalization for psychiatric problems including
. . . January 10, 2023 through January 12, 2023 for self-injurious behavior, and on June 16, 2023
for suicidal behavior"))).
Defendant argues that, in making her objection, Plaintiff "conspicuously declines to
assert that Magistrate Judge Katz made any error when making this determination." See id.
Instead, "Plaintiff resorts to requesting that this Court fashion a new rule 'providing that
additional material in the record, which is significantly complex . . . warrants development of the
record instead of deference to the ALJ's layperson interpretation of evidence[.]'" See id. (quoting
Pl. Obj. 3). Defendant contends, however, that Magistrate Judge Katz's decision accords with
Case 5:24-cv-00796-FJS-MJK Document 16 Filed 02/25/26 Page 8 of 12
- 9 -
Camille, and declining to adopt Plaintiff's proposed rule does not amount to 'clear error.'" See id.
at 4-5.
In response to Plaintiff's second objection that the ALJ did not sufficiently explain the
determination on D.L.C.'s ability to care for herself, Defendant argues that this is a restatement
of an argument Plaintiff presented in her initial brief and that, "as correctly explained, 'the ALJ
discussed substantial evidence, including evidence related to medication, in support of this
determination.'" See id. at 4 (citing R&R 17). Defendant contends that "Magistrate Judge Katz
also properly concluded that Plaintiff's argument that the ALJ should have relied more heavily on
certain specific pieces of evidence was nothing more than an impermissible request for the Court
to reweigh the evidence[.]" See id. (citing R&R 17-18 (citing Cruz o/b/o M.M.W. v. Comm'r of
Soc. Sec., No. 19-cv-9253, 2021 WL 4123969, at *13 (S.D.N.Y . Aug. 25, 2021) report and
recommendation adopted, 19-CV-9253, 2021 WL 4124225 [(] S.D.N.Y . Sept. 9, 2021)).
Accordingly, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has failed to establish that Magistrate Judge Katz
committed "clear error''; and, therefore, the Court should reject Plaintiff's objections. See id. at 4.
D. Standard of review
This Court reviews de novo those portions of a magistrate judge's report-recommendation
that have been properly preserved with a specific objection. See Petersen v. Astrue, 2 F. Supp. 3d
223, 228 (N.D.N.Y . 2012); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). "To be 'specific,' the objection must, with
particularity, 'identify [1] the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations, or report to
which it has an objection and [2] the basis for the objection.'" Id. (quoting N.D.N.Y . Local Rule
72.1(c)) (footnote omitted). If the parties do not file any specific objections, this Court reviews a
magistrate judge's report-recommendation for clear error. See id. at 229 (citing Fed. R. Civ P.
Case 5:24-cv-00796-FJS-MJK Document 16 Filed 02/25/26 Page 9 of 12
- 10 -
72(b), Advisory Committee Notes: 1993 Addition). Likewise, if an objection simply rehashes (of
the report-recommendation for clear error. See id. at 228-29 & n.6 (collecting cases). "'When
performing such a "clear error" review, "the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear
error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation."'" Dezarea W. v. Comm'r
of Soc. Sec., No. 6:21-CV-01138 (MAD/TWD), 2023 WL 2552452, *1 (N.D.N.Y . Mar. 17, 2023)
(quoting Canady v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 17-CV-0367, 2017 WL 5484663, *1 n.1 (N.D.N.Y .
Nov. 14, 2017) (citing Fed. R. Ci. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes: 1983 Addition; Batista v.
Walker, No. 94-CV-2826, 1995 WL 453299, *1 (S.D.N.Y . July 31, 1995))). After appropriate
review, "the court may accept, reject or modify in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
E. Analysis
As Defendant correctly points out, Plaintiff's objections are, in sum and substance, the
same arguments that she raised in her initial brief. Thus, the Court need only satisfy itself that
there is no clear error on the face of the record.
In his Report-Recommendation Magistrate Judge Katz cited Camille v. Colvin for the
general principle that "'[n]o case or regulation' . . . imposes an unqualified rule that a medical
opinion is superseded by additional material in the record' when the new 'evidence does not raise
doubts about' the opinion's reliability." See Dkt. No. 13 at 15 (quoting Camille v. Colvin, 652
Fed. App'x 25, 28, fn. 4 (2d Cir. June 15, 2016) (summary)). Magistrate Judge Katz cited this
general principle in response to Plaintiff's challenge to "Dr. Bruni's opinion because, like Dr.
Alexander's opinion, there is no indication that Dr. Bruni was aware of D.L.C.'s history of abuse
and self-harm." See id. (citing Pl. at 16). Relying in part on the general principle in Camille,
Case 5:24-cv-00796-FJS-MJK Document 16 Filed 02/25/26 Page 10 of 12
- 11 -
Magistrate Judge Katz concluded that because the new evidence did not raise doubts about Dr.
Bruni's opinion, the ALJ did not err when relying on the persuasive portions of Dr. Bruni's
opinion. See id. With regard to this recommendation, the Court finds no clear error on the face
of the record.
With regard to Magistrate Judge Katz's application of Cruz, Plaintiff argues that Cruz is
distinguishable from her case because in Cruz the court "addressed a challenge by a plaintiff who
felt that the ALJ had 'downplayed' or minimized the significant of evidence, which the plaintiff
felt supported a finding of marked limitation in a domain (despite the child obtaining A's and B's,
behaving appropriately, and improving overall)," see Dkt. No. 14 at 4 (quoting [Cruz,] at *14),
whereas, in this case, Plaintiff expressed concern, not just over weighing, but over the
insufficiency of the ALJ's explanations and over the ALJ's engagement in inappropriate
speculation regarding the role of medication." See id. (citing Dkt. No. 9 at 18; Dkt. No. 12 at 2)
(footnote omitted). The Court disagrees. As with her first objection regarding Magistrate Judge
Katz's application of general principles, Plaintiff has done nothing more than to make the same
argument as she made in her initial brief under a different theory. The Court finds that
Magistrate Judge Katz did not commit clear error when applying the principle set forth in Cruz to
this case. Nor does the Court find any clear error in Magistrate Judge Katz's conclusion that,
although Plaintiff may disagree with the ALJ's conclusion and the evidence may be susceptible to
more than one reasonable interpretation, where, as here, there is substantial evidence to support
the ALJ's decision, a request for the Court to reweigh the evidence is improper. See Dkt. No. 13
at 17-18.
Case 5:24-cv-00796-FJS-MJK Document 16 Filed 02/25/26 Page 11 of 12
- 12 -
I V. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the above-stated reasons, the Court hereby
ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Katz's Report-Recommendation, see Dkt. No. 13, is
ADOPTED and ACCEPTED in its entirety; and the Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings, see Dkt. No. 9, is
DENIED; and the Court further
ORDERS that Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings, see Dkt. No. 11, is
GRANTED; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in favor of Defendant and
close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 25, 2026
Syracuse, New York
Case 5:24-cv-00796-FJS-MJK Document 16 Filed 02/25/26 Page 12 of 12