govinfo:USCOURTS-njd-2_24-cv-05286-0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 
MAD DEL IN C. , 
No. 24-cv-5286 (MEF) 
Plaintiff, 
OPINION and ORDER 
v. 
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 
Defendant. 
* * * 
For the purposes of this brief Opinion and Order, the Court 
largely assumes familiarity with the facts and procedural 
history of this case. 
* * * 
A woman applied for disability benefits. See Complaint (ECF 1) 
'II 4. 
After her application was denied, she asked for an 
administrative law judge ("ALJ") to review her claim. See id. 'II 
8. 
The ALJ concluded the woman was not eligible for benefits --­
and the Appeals Council affirmed. See id. 
The Plaintiff then sought review in this Court, which reversed 
and remanded for further proceedings. See Custodio v. Saul, 
2021 WL 2070595, at *7 (D.N.J. May 21, 2021). 
On remand, a different ALJ again denied the woman's claim. 1 See 
Complaint 'II 8. 
1 The ALJ's 10-page decision is at Maddelin C. (S.S.A. A.L.J. 
Jan. 11, 2024). It can be found beginning at page 517 of the 
administrative record. PageID: <pageID>
This lawsuit followed. 
From here, the woman is called "the Plaintiff," and the 
Commissioner of Social Security is called "the Defendant." 
* * * 
The Plaintiff points to two asserted errors in the ALJ's 
decision. 
* * * 
First, the Plaintiff argues that the Defendant did not comply 
with this Court's remand order. See Plaintiff's Moving Brief 
(ECF 8) at 8-18; see generally Sullivan v. Hudson, 490 U.S. 877, 
886 (1989) ("Deviation from the court's remand order in the 
subsequent administrative proceedings is itself legal error, 
subject to reversal on further judicial review."). 
But the Defendant's prior decision was reversed because it "did 
not even discuss or even refer to" the Plaintiff's obesity "at 
any step in the sequential evaluation." Custodio, 2021 WL 
2070595, at *6. 
And the decision under review here, the one issued after the 
remand order, does directly addresses obesity. 
At step two of the required five-step analysis, the ALJ wrote: 
The potential impact of obesity has also been considered in 
possibly causing or contributing to co-existing impairments 
as required by Social Security Ruling 19-2p. There is no 
evidence, however, of any specific or quantifiable impact 
on pulmonary, musculoskeletal, endocrine or cardiac 
functioning. Nor has obesity caused more than minimal 
limitation in ability to perform basic work activities. 
The claimant's obesity, therefore, is not a severe 
impairment. 
Maddelin C., Administrative Record at 15. 
In addition, the ALJ considered the Plaintiff's obesity just 
before reaching step four of the analysis, as part of his 
assessment of the Plaintiff's residual functional capacity. See 
Maddelin C., at 518. 
But this was not enough, the Plaintiff seems to argue. Her 
papers suggest the ALJ should have written more about the 
2 PageID: <pageID>
potential impact of the Plaintiff's obesity on her other 
ailments, See Plaintiff's Opening Brief at 16-18. 
But "the ALJ [is not required] to use particular language or 
adhere to a particular format in conducting his analysis." 
Jones v. Barnhart, 364 F.3d 501, 505 (3d Cir. 2004); see also 
Diaz v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 577 F.3d 500, 504 (3d Cir. 2009); 
Ochs v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 187 F. App'x 186, 189 (3d Cir. 
2006); Sassone v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 165 F. App'x 954, 959 (3d 
Cir. 2006). 
Another issue. 
An error can generally be a basis for undoing an ALJ's decision 
only if it "was harmful." See Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 
396, 410 (2009); Woodson v. Comm'r Soc. Sec., 661 F. App'x 762, 
766 (3d Cir. 2016) (applying Shinseki to Social Security 
appeal); Taylor v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 826 F. App'x 224, 226 
(3d Cir. 2020) (same); R.Z. v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 2025 WL 
1823104, at *2 (D.N.J. July 2, 2025) (same). 
"This requires that [the] Plaintiff. . show that, but for the 
error, [s]he might have proven [her] disability." V.G. v. 
Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 2025 WL 1936903, at *2 (D.N.J. July 15, 
2025). 
The Plaintiff has not explained how fuller consideration of her 
obesity might have changed the ALJ's bottom-line decision. 
* * * 
Second, the Plaintiff argues that the Defendant's assessment of 
the Plaintiff's residual functional capacity was not supported 
by substantial evidence. 
The ALJ concluded that the Plaintiff had the "residual 
functional capacity to perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 
404.157(b) and 416.967(b)" --- subject to several exceptions. 2 
See Maddelin C., Administrative Record at 516. 
2 Specifically, the ALJ concluded the Plaintiff "can never climb 
ropes, ladders, or scaffolds; never be exposed to unprotected 
heights or hazardous machinery; occasionally climb stairs and 
ramps; never crawl; occasionally kneel; occasionally stoop and 
crouch; frequent reaching; and frequently balance." Maddelin 
~, Administrative Record at 516. 
3 PageID: <pageID>
Per the ALJ, that conclusion was based on consideration of "all 
symptoms" as well as pertinent "opinion evidence." See id. at 
517. 
He concluded the exceptions were warranted because of, among 
other things, MRI and examination records showing back issues. 
See id. at 517. 
The ALJ recognized that a 2014 medical report issued by a Dr. 
Noriega could support a different residual functional capacity 
assessment. But the ALJ concluded the report was not persuasive 
because it was at odds with both the examination Dr. Noriega did 
and some other evidence of record. See id. at 518. 
All of this added up to meaningful consideration of the medical 
evidence and the ALJ's ultimate conclusion was supported by 
"substantial evidence" --- "such relevant evidence as a 
reasonable mind might accept as adequate" to support the 
relevant determination. Burnett 
220 F.3d 112, 118 (3d Cir. 2000) 
Zirnsak v. Colvin, 777 F.3d 607, 
v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 
(cleaned up); see generally 
611 (3d Cir. 2014) (the 
reviewing district court "must not substitute [its] own judgment 
for that of the fact finder") 
Moreover, the Plaintiff's argument fails for another reason. 
The Plaintiff is generally required to show that any flaws in 
the ALJ's residual functional capacity assessment may have been 
"harmful." Shinseki, 556 U.S. at 410. 
But she has not attempted to do so. 
* * * 
The decision of the Commissioner is affirmed. 
IT IS on this 5th day of June, 2026, 7D-
Michael E. Farbiarz, U.S.D.J. 
4 PageID: <pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight