Sciarrino v. Commissioner of Social Security

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
SANDRA J. S.,
Plaintiff,
v. 	5:24-cv-01116 (AMN/ML)
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
Hon. Anne M. Nardacci, United States District Judge:
ORDER
I. 	INTRODUCTION
On September 16, 2024, Plaintiff Sandra J. S.1 commenced this action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social
Security (“Commissioner”) denying her application for disability insurance benefits under the
Social Security Act. Dkt. No. 1 (“Complaint”).
1 In accordance with the local practice of this Court, Plaintiff’s last name has been abbreviated to
protect her privacy.
Case 5:24-cv-01116-AMN-ML Document 17 Filed 02/03/26 Page 1 of 5

2
This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Miroslav Lovric, who, on
December 23, 2025, recommended that the Court grant Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the
pleadings, Dkt. No. 12, deny the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, Dkt. No.
14, and reverse and remand the Commissioner’s decision for the calculation and payment of
benefits. Dkt. No. 16 (“Report-Recommendation”). Magistrate Judge Lovric advised that under
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties had fourteen days within which to file written objections and
that failure to object to the Report-Recommendation within fourteen days would preclude appellate
review. Id. at 31.2 Neither party has filed any objections to the Report-Recommendation and the
time for filing objections has expired.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the Report-Recommendation in its
entirety.
II. 	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. Petersen v. Astrue, 2 F. Supp. 3d 223,
228-29 (N.D.N.Y. 2012); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). If no specific objections have been filed, this
Court reviews a magistrate judge’s report-recommendation for clear error. See Petersen, 2 F.
Supp. 3d at 229. “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. 21-cv-01138, 2023 WL 2552452, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar.
17, 2023) (quoting Canady v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 17-cv-0367, 2017 WL 5484663, at *1 n.1
(N.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2017)). After appropriate review, “the court may accept, reject, or modify, in
2 Citations to court documents utilize the pagination generated by CM/ECF, the Court’s electronic
filing system, and not the documents’ internal pagination.
Case 5:24-cv-01116-AMN-ML Document 17 Filed 02/03/26 Page 2 of 5

3
whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(C).
III. DISCUSSION
Because neither party has filed any objections to the Report-Recommendation, the Court
reviews the Report-Recommendation for clear error.
More than a decade ago, Plaintiff applied for disability insurance benefits. Dkt. No. 16 at
2. In the years since, Defendant has denied Plaintiff’s claim three times. Id. at 2-3. Plaintiff is
now approaching seventy years old. Dkt. No. 2; Dkt. No. 16 at 25. Plaintiff’s severe impairments
include cerebral palsy. Dkt. No. 16 at 7-8. For Plaintiff, poor balance is one manifestation of this
neurological disorder. Id. at 7. There is medical evidence documenting Plaintiff’s history of falls
and the resulting injuries that she has suffered. Id. 18-19.
The last two times that Plaintiff sought judicial review of Defendant’s denial of her claim,
the parties stipulated to remand Defendant’s decision for further proceedings. Id. at 2-3.
Magistrate Judge Lovric ordered the first remand in February 2022; Chief United States District
Judge Brenda K. Sannes ordered the second remand in November 2023. Id. at 3. Following
Defendant’s third denial, Plaintiff brought the present challenge. Id. at 4.
Over several dozen pages in the Report-Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Lovric
detailed the relevant legal standards, the history of this matter, the record evidence, and the issues
in contention. See generally id. As relevant here, Magistrate Judge Lovric determined that the
ALJ’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence and did not indicate compliance with
the applicable regulations. See, e.g., id. at 17-25; see also Raymond M. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.,
No. 19-cv-1313, 2021 WL 706645, at *8 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2021) (“At their most basic, the
amended regulations require that the ALJ explain her findings regarding the supportability and
Case 5:24-cv-01116-AMN-ML Document 17 Filed 02/03/26 Page 3 of 5

4
consistency for each of the medical opinions, ‘pointing to specific evidence in the record
supporting those findings.’”) (quoting Jacqueline L. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 515 F. Supp. 3d 2, 11
(W.D.N.Y. 2021)).
As a result, Magistrate Judge Lovric concluded that remand for the calculation and
payment of benefits was appropriate in this particular case. Dkt. No. 16 at 25. More specifically,
Magistrate Judge Lovric determined that the nearly 3,000 page record, stretching back to 2011,
was sufficiently complete, see, e.g., Butts v. Barnhart, 388 F.3d 377, 385-86 (2d Cir. 2004)
(“[W]here this Court has had no apparent basis to conclude that a more complete record might
support the Commissioner’s decision, we have opted simply to remand for a calculation of
benefits.”) (citation omitted); that the record provided persuasive evidence of Plaintiff’s disability,
see, e.g., Skrodzki v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 693 F. App’x 29, 30 (2d Cir. 2017) (“A reversal
with remand for the calculation of benefits is appropriate when the record is so clear as to compel
a conclusion.”) (citation omitted); and that Plaintiff’s advancing age, the possibility of further
delay, and the lengthy procedural history of this case, all weighed in favor of such a remand as
well, see, e.g., Torres v. Colvin, No. 16-cv-00809, 2017 WL 1734020, at *4 (D. Conn. May 3,
2017) (“Plaintiff’s claim has been pending for more than seven years and was already remanded
by the District Court once before. I am not persuaded that the Commissioner deserves a third
opportunity to carry her burden. . . . The case is remanded solely for calculation and payment of
benefits.”) (collecting cases). See Dkt. No. 16 at 25-29.
Magistrate Judge Lovric also noted that the calculation of benefits should take into account
certain of the ALJ’s factual findings. Id. at 29.
The Court discerns no clear error in Magistrate Judge Lovric’s findings and
recommendations. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report-Recommendation in its entirety.
Case 5:24-cv-01116-AMN-ML Document 17 Filed 02/03/26 Page 4 of 5

5
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court hereby
ORDERS that the Report-Recommendation, Dkt. No. 16, is ADOPTED in its entirety;
and the Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, Dkt. No. 12, is
GRANTED; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, Dkt. No. 14, is
DENIED; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Commissioner’s final decision is REVERSED and REMANDED to
the Commissioner for the calculation and payment of benefits consistent with the Report-
Recommendation, Dkt. No. 16; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on all parties in accordance with the
Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 3, 2026
Albany, New York
Case 5:24-cv-01116-AMN-ML Document 17 Filed 02/03/26 Page 5 of 5