Randolph v. Bisignano

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
____________________________________________
LYRIC R.,
Plaintiff,
vs. 	1:25-cv-00234
(MAD/MJK)
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
____________________________________________
APPEARANCES: 	OF COUNSEL:
HILLER COMERFORD INJURY 	JUSTIN M. GOLDSTEIN, ESQ.
& DISABILITY LAW
6000 North Bailey Avenue, Suite 1a
Amherst, New York 14226
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 	AMY BLAND, ESQ.
6401 Security Boulevard 	VERNON NORWOOD, ESQ.
Baltimore, Maryland 21235
Attorneys for Defendant
Mae A. D'Agostino, U.S. District Judge:
ORDER
Lyric R. ("Plaintiff") commenced this action on February 21, 2025, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3). Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff seeks review of a decision by the Commissioner
of Social Security ("Defendant" or "the Commissioner"), which denied her application for
supplemental security income ("SSI") and disability insurance benefits ("DIB") based on a lack of
disability. See id. Both parties filed briefs, which the Court treats as motions under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(c), on the issue of whether substantial evidence supports the decision of the
Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") regarding Plaintiff's disability status. See Dkt. Nos. 7, 14, 15.
Case 1:25-cv-00234-MAD-MJK Document 17 Filed 01/13/26 Page 1 of 8

2
In a Report-Recommendation dated December 2, 2025, Magistrate Judge Mitchell Katz
recommended that Plaintiff's motion be granted, Defendant's motion be denied, and the
Commissioner's decision be remanded for further administrative proceedings.1 Dkt. No. 16.
Neither party filed objections to the Report-Recommendation.
When a party declines to file objections to a magistrate judge's report-recommendation,
the court reviews the recommendations for clear error. See Coleman v. Hanuszczak, No. 5:16-
CV-735, 2016 WL 4523918, *1 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2016); Petersen v. Astrue, 2 F. Supp. 3d 223,
229 (N.D.N.Y. 2012). "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.'"
Petersen, 2 F. Supp. 3d at 229 (citation omitted). After the 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).
Magistrate Judge Katz correctly stated that a "substantial evidence" standard applies to the
ALJ's decision. Dkt. No. 16 at 3; see Biestek v. Berryhill, 587 U.S. 97, 99 (2019) (citing 42
U.S.C. § 405(g)). "Under the substantial-evidence standard, a court looks to an existing
administrative record and asks whether it contains 'sufficien[t] evidence' to support the agency's
factual determinations." Biestek, 587 U.S. at 102 (quoting Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S.
197, 229 (1938)). Although "the threshold for such evidentiary sufficiency is not high[,]" id. at
103, "[i]t is more than a mere scintilla or a touch of proof here and there in the record[,]" Williams
v. Bowen, 859 F.2d 255, 258 (2d Cir. 1988).
1 Although the final page of the Report-Recommendation states that the Court should affirm the
Commissioner's decision, it is clear from the surrounding context that Magistrate Judge Katz
recommends remanding the decision.
Case 1:25-cv-00234-MAD-MJK Document 17 Filed 01/13/26 Page 2 of 8

3
Furthermore, as Magistrate Judge Katz mentioned, ALJs use a five-step analysis to
evaluate disability insurance and supplemental security income claims. Dkt. No. 16 at 3.
Magistrate Judge Katz did not elaborate on those steps, so the Court summarizes them as follows:
First, the Commissioner considers whether the claimant is currently
engaged in substantial gainful activity. If [she] is not, the
Commissioner next considers whether the claimant has a "severe
impairment" which significantly limits [her] physical or mental
ability to do basic work activities. If the claimant suffers such an
impairment, the third inquiry is whether, based solely on medical
evidence, the claimant has an impairment which meets or equals the
criteria of an impairment listed in Appendix 1 of the regulations. If
the claimant has such an impairment, the Commissioner will
consider [her] [per se] disabled . . . . Assuming the claimant does
not have a listed impairment, the fourth inquiry is whether, despite
the claimant's severe impairment, [she] has the residual functional
capacity to perform [her] past work. Finally, if the claimant is
unable to perform [her] past work, the Commissioner then
determines whether there is other work which the claimant could
perform.
Brown v. Colvin, No. 5:14-cv-725, 2015 WL 4488670, *4 (N.D.N.Y. July 22, 2015) (quoting
Selian v. Astrue, 708 F.3d 409, 417-18 (2d Cir. 2013); citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920).
As Magistrate Judge Katz explained, Plaintiff argues that in applying the five-step framework, the
ALJ failed to properly evaluate her migraines, mischaracterized evidence, failed to provide
reasoning that constitutes an adequate basis for meaningful judicial review, and failed to address
necessary evidence. Dkt. No. 16 at 6-7; see also Dkt. No. 7.
In recommending remand of the ALJ's decision, Magistrate Judge Katz first concluded
that the decision "misunderstands the insidious nature of migraines" and "discount[s] the
intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of Lyric's migraines." Dkt. No. 16 at 7-8. More
specifically, Magistrate Judge Katz found that the ALJ "put blinders on, examined only the
objective medical evidence, and refused to acknowledge other parts of the record." Id. at 8.
Case 1:25-cv-00234-MAD-MJK Document 17 Filed 01/13/26 Page 3 of 8

4
Because it is improper for an ALJ to look only for objective evidence of severe headaches while
ignoring other evidence in the record, see Dodson v. Berryhill, No. 6:16-CV-0597, 2017 WL
2838167, at *9-10 (N.D.N.Y. June 30, 2017), the Court sees no clear error in Magistrate Judge
Katz's determination. For example, Magistrate Judge Katz rightly observed that the ALJ, with no
apparent basis, declared Plaintiff's headaches "well managed and controlled . . . ." Dkt. No. 16 at
8 (quoting Dkt. No. 6 at 28). The ALJ pointed broadly to Plaintiff's continuous treatment as
evidence of successful management and control, Dkt. No. 6 at 28, but as Magistrate Judge Katz
emphasized, Plaintiff continues to experience daily headaches that have required higher
medication doses over time, Dkt. No. 16 at 8-9. Moreover, Plaintiff reported that constant
headaches prevent her from sleeping for more than two hours at a time, and her dizziness prevents
her from driving. Dkt. No. 6 at 204, 206. These issues militate against a finding of successful
management or control, and as Magistrate Judge Katz aptly stated, "it is unclear what the ALJ
reviewed to determine that Lyric's migraines were 'well managed and controlled with
medication.'" Dkt. No. 16 at 9. Because of the ALJ's failure to identify specific, substantial
evidence from the record to support this conclusion, the Court finds no clear error with Magistrate
Judge Katz's determination on this issue.
Second, Magistrate Judge Katz concluded that the ALJ "mischaracterize[d] the record and
relie[d] on the mischaracterization" by overstating how much Plaintiff can lift and overestimating
her dexterity. Id. at 10-11. The Court does not discern any clear error in Magistrate Judge Katz's
observations of certain discrepancies between the ALJ's conclusions and the evidence in the
record. See Dkt. No. 6 at 28 (ALJ referencing Plaintiff's ability to change her cat's litter and
prepare "simple, basic meals," including chicken and pasta, as evidence of non-disability); id. at
204 (function report stating that Plaintiff feeds her cat but does not change its litter because the
Case 1:25-cv-00234-MAD-MJK Document 17 Filed 01/13/26 Page 4 of 8

5
bag is too heavy); id. at 204-05 (function report stating that although Plaintiff can prepare bagels,
eggs, soup, sandwiches, and frozen meals independently, and reported no problems with personal
care, her vertigo limits her ability to prepare meals); id. at 48 (Plaintiff testifying at the
administrative hearing that she cannot not prepare "chicken in the oven or pasta on the stove[,]"
and that her "mom does most of the cooking"). To the extent that the ALJ relied on erroneous
factual recitations in deeming Plaintiff non-disabled, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Katz
that substantial evidence does not support those portions of the decision.
Likewise, the Court also finds no clear error with Magistrate Judge Katz's determination
that the ALJ failed to "create a logical bridge of reasoning" between the cited record evidence of
Plaintiff's routine activities and her ability to work. Dkt. No. 16 at 12; see also id. at 15 (citing
Renee M. B. v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:19-cv-00922, 2021 WL 716704, *6 (W.D.N.Y. Feb.
24, 2021)) ("All in all, the fact that Lyric can read, watch television, and play games on her phone
alone is insufficient evidence to say Lyric can perform full time employment"). Although ALJs
consider a wide range of information related to a claimant's symptoms, see 20 C.F.R. §
404.1529(c), "[i]t is well-settled law in th[e Second] Circuit that [basic daily] activity does not, in
itself, contradict a claim of disability, 'as people should not be penalized for enduring the pain of
their disability in order to care for themselves[,]'" Brown v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 06-CV-
3174, 2011 WL 1004696, *5 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2011) (quoting Woodford v. Apfel, 93 F. Supp.
2d 521, 529 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)) (stating that the ALJ and Commissioner needed to show how the
claimant's "occasional outings, relationship with a girlfriend, and episodic driving add[ed] up to
an ability to sit upright for six hours every workday . . ."). Although the ALJ was correct to
consider Plaintiff's daily activities, the decision fails to explicate why Plaintiff's ability to feed her
cat, groom herself, prepare basic foods, perform light household chores, accompany her mother to
Case 1:25-cv-00234-MAD-MJK Document 17 Filed 01/13/26 Page 5 of 8

6
the grocery store, take short walks, read, watch television, or play games on her phone indicate a
lack of disability.
Furthermore—although unaddressed in the Report-Recommendation—the ALJ's
determination that Plaintiff can work, and therefore is not disabled, discounts her treating
neurologist's opinion that Plaintiff "would be incapable of low stress work." Dkt. No. 6 at 30; see
id. at 665. ALJs must use a five-factor analysis to evaluate the persuasiveness of medical
opinions for claims filed after March 27, 2017. Those factors are "supportability," "consistency,"
"relationship with the claimant," "specialization," and "other factors that tend to support or
contradict a medical opinion or prior administrative medical finding." 20 C.F.R. §§
416.920c(c)(1)-(5). Inexplicably, the ALJ prioritized the opinion of Dr. Penn, Plaintiff's
neurosurgeon, over opinions of other healthcare providers. See Dkt. No. 6 at 30-31. For
example, the record shows that Plaintiff communicates monthly with her treating neurologist, Dr.
Kumar, and has visited Dr. Kumar every other month for more than three years. Id. at 665. On
the other hand, the record shows that Plaintiff only has "annual" contact with Dr. Penn. Id. at
662. Regardless, the ALJ determined that Dr. Kumar's assessment of Plaintiff's inability to work
is "unpersuasive," partially because of its inconsistency with Dr. Penn's opinion. Id. at 30-31.
Although an ALJ need not expressly mention each of the five factors, see Jennifer A. v. Comm'r
of Soc. Sec., No. 1:22-CV-1167, 2023 WL 8654215, *4 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 2023), there is no
indication that the ALJ even considered the extent of each provider's relationship with Plaintiff,
their medical specialties, or their relative expertise. Moreover, "[i]t is well-established that an
ALJ may not generally assert that an opinion is 'consistent with' or 'supported by' the record,
without further elaboration." Jessica L.M. v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 5:24-CV-00403, 2025 WL
1994917, *11 (N.D.N.Y. June 9, 2025), report-recommendation adopted, 2025 WL 1994646
Case 1:25-cv-00234-MAD-MJK Document 17 Filed 01/13/26 Page 6 of 8

7
(N.D.N.Y. July 17, 2025). As such, in addition to the reasons Magistrate Juge Katz identified, the
ALJ's failure to properly evaluate the persuasiveness of various medical opinions warrants
remand.
Finally, although also not addressed in the Report-Recommendation, the parties dispute
whether the ALJ was required to discuss Plaintiff's Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group
("ECOG") performance scores. See Dkt. No. 7 at 23; Dkt. No. 14 at 13-14. The applicable
regulations require ALJs to "consider all evidence in [the claimant's] case record[,]" 20 C.F.R. §§
404.1520(a)(3), 416.920(a)(3), but do not require them to explicitly mention every piece of record
evidence in the decision, see Durakovic v. Colvin, No. 3:12-CV-6, 2014 WL 1293427, *8
(N.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 3014) (collecting cases). Thus, the ALJ was required to consider the ECOG
scores as part of the record, but did not need to mention them explicitly.
Having reviewed the Report-Recommendation, the parties' submissions, and the
applicable law, the Court concludes that Magistrate Judge Katz correctly determined that the
Court should remand the Commissioner's decision for further proceedings.
Accordingly, the Court hereby
ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Katz's Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 16) is
ADOPTED in its entirety; and the Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiff's motion (Dkt. No. 7) is GRANTED; and the Court further
ORDERS that Defendant's motion (Dkt. No. 14) is DENIED; and the Court further
ORDERS that Defendant's decision denying Plaintiff benefits is REMANDED pursuant
to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in Plaintiff's favor and close
this case; and the Court further
Case 1:25-cv-00234-MAD-MJK Document 17 Filed 01/13/26 Page 7 of 8

8
ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order on the parties in
accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 13, 2026
Albany, New York
Case 1:25-cv-00234-MAD-MJK Document 17 Filed 01/13/26 Page 8 of 8