Bourgeois v. Commissioner of Social Security

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
HEATHER B.,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
5:24-CV-1182 (AMN/ML)
APPEARANCES:
OLINSKY LAW GROUP
250 South Clinton Street – Suite 210
Syracuse, NY 13202
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235
Attorneys for Defendant
OF COUNSEL:
HOWARD D. OLINKSY, ESQ.
VERNON NORWOOD, ESQ.
Hon. Anne M. Nardacci, United States District Judge
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
I. 	INTRODUCTION
On September 26, 2024, Plaintiff Heather B.1 (“Plaintiff”) 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 supplemental security income (“SSI”) and
disability insurance benefits (“DIB”). 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-01182-AMN-ML Document 18 Filed 03/20/26 Page 1 of 6

2
This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Thérèse Wiley Dancks, who,
on November 7, 2025, recommended that the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the
pleadings, Dkt. No. 11, grant the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, Dkt. No.
12, dismiss the Complaint, and affirm the Commissioner’s decision. 	Dkt. No. 14 (“Report-
Recommendation”). 	Magistrate Judge Dancks 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 18.
Plaintiff filed timely objections on November 21, 2025, Dkt. No. 15, and the Commissioner filed
a response to Plaintiff’s objections on December 5, 2025, Dkt. No. 16.
For the reasons that follow, 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 (N.D.N.Y. 2012); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 	“To be ‘specific,’ the objection must, with
particularity, ‘identify [1] the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations, or report to
which it has an objection and [2] the basis for the objection.’” 	Petersen, 2 F. Supp. 3d at 228
(quoting N.D.N.Y. Local Rule 72.1(c)). 	If no specific objections have been filed, this Court
reviews a magistrate judge’s report-recommendation for clear error. See id. at 229 (citing Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes: 1983 Addition). 	Similarly, if an objection simply
rehashes arguments originally presented to the magistrate judge, this Court reviews the relevant
portions of the report-recommendation for clear error. See id. at 228-29 & n.6 (collecting cases).
“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.
Case 5:24-cv-01182-AMN-ML Document 18 Filed 03/20/26 Page 2 of 6

3
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 whole or in
part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
III. 	DISCUSSION
The Court adopts those aspects of the Report-Recommendation to which neither Party has
raised a specific objection, finding no clear error therein, including the background and legal
framework set forth in the Report-Recommendation, familiarity with which is presumed for
purposes of this Memorandum-Decision and Order. See Dkt. No. 14 at 1-7. 2
Plaintiff makes two objections in her submission, both of which are arguments that Plaintiff
previously presented to Judge Dancks. 	Compare Dkt. No. 15 at 1-3 with Dkt. No. 11 at 8-10;
compare Dkt. No. 15 at 3-4 with Dkt. No. 11 at 11-12. As a result, Plaintiff’s objections are subject
to clear error review.
First, Plaintiff objects to Magistrate Judge Dancks’ finding that the Administrative Law
Judge (“ALJ”) sufficiently considered the supportability of the opinion of Plaintiff’s medical
source, Dr. Jeanne Shapiro. Dkt. No. 15 at 1-3. Specifically, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ’s residual
functional capacity (“RFC”) determination failed to properly consider certain aspects of Dr.
Shapiro’s opinion. Id. at 2. Plaintiff further argues that remand is required for consideration of
Dr. Shapiro’s findings in support of her conclusion that Plaintiff had greater limitations than those
found by the ALJ in the RFC determination, namely her findings concerning Plaintiff’s
“experience of abuse, her posttraumatic symptoms, and her social issues,” as well as concerning
2 Citations to court documents utilize the pagination generated by CM/ECF, the Court’s electronic
filing system.
Case 5:24-cv-01182-AMN-ML Document 18 Filed 03/20/26 Page 3 of 6

4
Plaintiff’s relationship with her family. Id. at 3. In the Report-Recommendation, Magistrate Judge
Dancks found that the ALJ’s finding of moderate limitations was supported by substantial evidence
and that the ALJ had provided adequate reasons for discounting Dr. Shapiro’s conclusions
regarding Plaintiff’s limitations. 	Dkt. No. 14 at 11-13. 	In finding that Plaintiff had moderate
limitations in mental functioning, the ALJ cited Dr. Shapiro’s own notes stating that Plaintiff
exhibited, 	among 	other 	things, 	a 	“cooperative” 	demeanor, 	“adequate,” 	“coherent,” 	and
“appropriate” social traits, and could perform normal activities of daily living. Id. at 12-13 (citing
Stephanie F.B. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:22-cv-311, 2024 WL 4116263, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. Sept.
9, 2024) (affirming ALJ’s rejection of marked limitations in the plaintiff’s ability to interact with
others, regulate emotions, and control behavior in part because evidence in the record as to the
plaintiff’s severity included normal mental status exams and normal activities of daily living such
as being able to dress, bathe, groom herself, clean, do laundry, drive and care for her children)).
Magistrate Judge Dancks found that the ALJ’s explanation was sufficient on the question
of supportability because the ALJ noted which of Dr. Shapiro’s conclusions were supported by her
findings and which were not. Dkt. No. 14 at 11-12; see, e.g., Tara M. B. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.,
No. 1:22-CV-1058 (MAD/DEP), 2023 WL 7286669, at *4 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 21, 2023) (finding
ALJ’s supportability analysis sufficient where ALJ discounted certain of doctor’s limitation
conclusions based on doctor’s own objective findings), report and recommendation adopted sub
nom. Tara B. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 2023 WL 7281138 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 3, 2023); see also Rosado
v. Sullivan, 805 F. Supp. 147, 153 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) (holding that if the Commissioner’s finding is
supported by substantial evidence, it must be sustained “even where substantial evidence may
support the plaintiff’s position”). Thus, the Court finds no clear error in Magistrate Judge Dancks’
treatment of the ALJ’s finding regarding supportability.
Case 5:24-cv-01182-AMN-ML Document 18 Filed 03/20/26 Page 4 of 6

5
Second, Plaintiff objects to Magistrate Judge Dancks’ interpretation of the evidence cited
in the ALJ’s finding that Dr. Shapiro’s opinion was inconsistent. Dkt. No. 15 at 3-4. Specifically,
Plaintiff argues that Magistrate Judge Dancks undervalued the significance of Plaintiff’s anxiety
diagnoses as contributors to Dr. Shapiro’s conclusion finding marked limitations, and that with a
proper understanding, Dr. Shapiro’s findings that Plaintiff exhibited “normal behavior, normal
though content, and normal judgment” could be consistent with such marked limitations because
Plaintiff’s 	anxiety 	would 	not 	manifest 	“when 	not 	under 	stress”. 	Id.. 	In 	the 	Report-
Recommendation, however, Magistrate Judge Dancks noted that the ALJ’s finding regarding the
medical opinion’s consistency “was not focused on just Plaintiff’s anxiety but her ability to
regulate emotions,” and that Dr. Shapiro’s findings “do not indicate that the claimant lacked control
of her emotions.” 	Dkt. No. 14 at 13-14. 	Magistrate Judge Dancks also found that the ALJ’s
determination of inconsistency was sufficient not only because the ALJ addressed inconsistencies
within Dr. Shapiro’s opinion, but also because the ALJ addressed inconsistencies between Dr.
Shapiro’s opinion and Plaintiff’s treatment history, including the findings of state agency
consultants. See Dkt. No. 14 at 14-15. Accordingly, the Court finds no clear error in Magistrate
Judge Dancks’ assessment of the ALJ’s finding regarding consistency.
Thus, for the reasons stated, the Court adopts the Report-Recommendation in its entirety.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court hereby
ORDERS that the Report-Recommendation, Dkt. No. 14, is ADOPTED in its entirety;
and the Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiff’s motion, Dkt. No. 11, is DENIED; and the Court further
Case 5:24-cv-01182-AMN-ML Document 18 Filed 03/20/26 Page 5 of 6

6
ORDERS that the Commissioner’s motion, Dkt. No. 12, is GRANTED; and the Court
further
ORDERS that the Complaint, Dkt. No. 1, is DISMISSED; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Clerk serve a copy of this Memorandum-Decision and Order on all
parties in accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 20, 2026
Albany, New York
Case 5:24-cv-01182-AMN-ML Document 18 Filed 03/20/26 Page 6 of 6