Hitchcock v. Commissioner of Social Security

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
KRISTEN M. H.,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
1:24-cv-1020 (BKS/PJE)
Appearances:
For Plaintiff:
Howard D. Olinsky
Olinsky Law Group
250 South Clinton Street, Suite 210
Syracuse, NY 13202
For Defendant:
Vernon Norwood
Shannon Fishel
Special Assistant United States Attorney
Office of the General Counsel
Social Security Administration
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235
Hon. Brenda K. Sannes, Chief United States District Judge:
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking review of the Commissioner
of Social Security’s denial of her application for Social Security disability insurance benefits and
supplemental security income. (Dkt. No. 1). This matter was referred to United States Magistrate
Judge Paul J. Evangelista for a Report-Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 4); Local Rule 72.3(e). On
December 5, 2025, after reviewing the parties’ briefs, (Dkt. Nos. 10, 18), and the Administrative
Transcript, (Dkt. No. 15), Magistrate Judge Evangelista issued a Report-Recommendation
Case 1:24-cv-01020-BKS-PJE Document 20 Filed 02/24/26 Page 1 of 3

2
recommending that plaintiff’s cross-motion be granted, the Commissioner’s cross-motion be
denied, and the Commissioner’s decision be reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
(Dkt. No. 19). Magistrate Judge Evangelista advised the parties that under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1),
they had “fourteen days within which to file written objections” to the Report-Recommendation
and that “failure to object to th[e] report within fourteen days will preclude appellate review.”
(Dkt. No. 19, at 14 (citing Roldan v. Racette, 984 F.2d 85 (2d Cir. 1993)); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. No objections were filed.
The Court reviews de novo those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s findings and
recommendations that have been properly preserved with a specific objection. Petersen v.
Astrue, 2 F. Supp. 3d 223, 228–29 (N.D.N.Y. 2012); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Findings and
recommendations as to which there was no properly preserved objection are reviewed for clear
error. Id. Neither of the parties has raised any objection to Magistrate Judge Evangelista’s
Report-Recommendation. The Court has reviewed the Report-Recommendation for clear error
and found none.1
For these reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Evangelista’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 19)
is ADOPTED in all respects; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s cross-motion (Dkt. No. 10) is GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED, that Defendant’s cross-motion (Dkt. No. 18) is DENIED, and the
1 In recommending remand, Magistrate Judge Evangelista found, inter alia, that the vocational expert “added . . . more
restrictive conditions on plaintiff’s light limitation.” (Dkt. No. 19, at 12 (emphasis added)). This seems to have been
a misstatement. Read in context, it appears that Magistrate Judge Evangelista intended to find that by excluding jobs
with “unusually bright lights” and “flashing lights” only, the VE placed less restrictive conditions on plaintiff’s light
limitations than the ALJ, who found plaintiff’s condition prohibited her from working in jobs with concentrated
exposure to “bright light.” (See id.). As no party objects, and the meaning is easily understood when read in context,
the Court finds any error harmless.
Case 1:24-cv-01020-BKS-PJE Document 20 Filed 02/24/26 Page 2 of 3

3
Commissioner’s decision is reversed and remanded for further proceedings; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 24, 2026
Syracuse, New York
Case 1:24-cv-01020-BKS-PJE Document 20 Filed 02/24/26 Page 3 of 3