Aponte v. Bisignano

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
____________________________________________
MARIA E. A.,
Plaintiff,
vs. 	5:24-CV-1015
(MAD/TWD)
FRANK BISIGNANO, 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
Attorney for Plaintiff
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 	FERGUS J. KAISER, ESQ.
Office of Program Litigation
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, Maryland 21235
Attorney for Defendant
Mae A. D'Agostino, U.S. District Judge:
ORDER
Plaintiff, Maria E. A., commenced this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking
review of the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (the "Commissioner") denying her
application for supplemental security income. See Dkt. No. 1.
In a Report and Recommendation dated December 18, 2025, Magistrate Judge Therese
Wiley Dancks recommended that (1) Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings be granted;
Case 5:24-cv-01015-MAD-TWD Document 22 Filed 02/03/26 Page 1 of 4

2
(2) Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings be denied; and (3) the Commissioner's
decision be remanded. See Dkt. No. 18. Neither party filed objections.
When no objections are made to a magistrate judge's recommendation, the Court reviews a
report-recommendation for only clear error. See Petersen v. Astrue, 2 F. Supp. 3d 223, 229
(N.D.N.Y. 2012) (citing FED. R. C IV. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Note: 1983). "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.'" Id. (quotation and footnote
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).
The Court finds no clear error in the Report and Recommendation.
First, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Dancks that the Administrative Law Judge
("ALJ") sufficiently analyzed the medical opinions in the record pursuant to 20 C.F.R. §§
416.920c, 416.945. As Magistrate Judge Dancks explained, "in many cases, the ALJ only need
'explain' how the supportability and consistency factors were considered, as they are 'the most
important factors.'" Alexis L.W. v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 5:24-CV-01131, 2026 WL 214322,
*4 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 12, 2026) (quoting Brian K. v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 5:24-CV-26, 2025 WL
18718, *4 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 2, 2025)) (additional quotation marks omitted). The ALJ discussed
how each medical opinion compared to the other medical opinions, Plaintiff's treatment history,
and her activities of daily living. See Dkt. No. 14-2 at 25. The Court finds no clear error in
Magistrate Judge Dancks' conclusion that the ALJ's discussion is sufficient to meet the statutory
requirements.
Second, the Court finds no clear error in the recommendation that the ALJ's decision be
remanded because the ALJ did not rectify an apparent conflict between the testimony of a
Case 5:24-cv-01015-MAD-TWD Document 22 Filed 02/03/26 Page 2 of 4

3
Vocational Expert ("VE") and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles ("DOT"). See Dkt. No. 21 at
16-19. As explained more fully by Magistrate Judge Dancks, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff
"can never reach overhead"; the VE testified that, with that restriction, Plaintiff could perform the
jobs of mail clerk, router, and office helper; but the DOT states that each position requires
"frequent" reaching. Dkt. No. 21 at 17; see also Dkt. No. 14-2 at 45. The VE testified that "the
issue of reaching overhead is not addressed in the DOT or for reaching on all planes, so that issue
is based on my experience." Dkt. No. 14-2 at 45. The Court agrees with Magistrate Judge
Dancks that the VE's testimony is insufficient for the ALJ to have adequately addressed the
conflict between his Residual Functional Capacity ("RFC") determination and the jobs Plaintiff
could perform.
Magistrate Judge Dancks keenly compared this case to that decided by the Second Circuit
in Lockwood v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 914 F.3d 87, 91-94 (2d Cir. 2019). See Dkt. No. 21
at 17-19. In Lockwood, the Second Circuit concluded that "[i]n the end, the Commissioner failed
to reconcile [the VE's] testimony that a person with an overhead reaching limitation can perform
the three jobs at issue [] with the Dictionary's indication that all three jobs require 'reaching.'"
[The] testimony cannot, then, represent substantial evidence capable of demonstrating that
Lockwood can successfully perform work in the national economy." Lockwood, 914 F.3d at 94.
The Court finds no clear error in Magistrate Judge Dancks' determination that the same
conclusion is warranted, here. See also Dkt. No. 21 at 17-18 (relying on Matthew M. v. Comm’r
of Soc. Sec., No. 1:20-CV-1644, 2022 WL 3346949, *4 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 12, 2022), which
concerned the same issue).
Accordingly, after carefully reviewing the Report and Recommendation, the entire record
in this matter, and the applicable law, the Court hereby
Case 5:24-cv-01015-MAD-TWD Document 22 Filed 02/03/26 Page 3 of 4

4
ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Dancks' Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 21) is
ADOPTED in its entirety for the reasons set forth herein; and the Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 17) is
GRANTED; and the Court further
ORDERS that Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 19) is
DENIED; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Commissioner's decision is REVERSED and REMANDED for
further proceedings; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in Plaintiff's favor and close the
case; and the Court further
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: February 3, 2026
Albany, New York
Case 5:24-cv-01015-MAD-TWD Document 22 Filed 02/03/26 Page 4 of 4