McCarthy v. O'Malley

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
LARA JEANETTE M.,
Plaintiff,
v. 	5:24-cv-01365 (AMN/PJE)
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
APPEARANCES: 	OF COUNSEL:
HILLER COMERFORD 	JUSTIN M. GOLDSTEIN, ESQ.
INJURY & DISABILITY LAW 	MARY ELLEN GILL, ESQ.
6000 North Bailey Avenue – Suite 1a
Amherst, New York 14226
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 	GEOFFREY M. PETERS, ESQ.
Office of the General Counsel
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, Maryland 21235
Attorneys for Defendant
Hon. Anne M. Nardacci, United States District Judge:
ORDER
I. 	INTRODUCTION
On November 12, 2024, Plaintiff Lara Jeanette M. 1 commenced this action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3), seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social
Security (“Commissioner”) denying her application for supplemental security income benefits
1 In accordance with the local practice of this Court, Plaintiff’s last name has been abbreviated to
protect his privacy.
Case 5:24-cv-01365-AMN-PJE Document 18 Filed 03/13/26 Page 1 of 5

2
under the Social Security Act. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff sought and received leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. Dkt. Nos. 3, 7.
This matter was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge Paul J. Evangelista, who,
on February 25, 2026, recommended that the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the
pleadings, Dkt. No. 13, grant the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, Dkt. No.
15, dismiss the Complaint, Dkt. No. 1, and affirm the Commissioner’s decision. 	Dkt. No. 17
(“Report-Recommendation”). 	Magistrate Judge Evangelista 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 17-18. 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 (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 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) Advisory Committee Notes: 1983 Addition). “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.
2 Citations to docket entries utilize the pagination generated by CM/ECF, the Court’s electronic
filing system.
Case 5:24-cv-01365-AMN-PJE Document 18 Filed 03/13/26 Page 2 of 5

3
Sec., No. 21-cv-1138, 2023 WL 2552452, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2023) (quoting Canady v.
Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 17-cv-367, 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
Because neither party has filed any objections to the Report-Recommendation, the Court
reviews the Report-Recommendation for clear error.
First, Magistrate Judge Evangelista concluded that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”)
did not err in her assessment of the supportability of the medical opinion of Plaintiff’s primary
physician, Dr. Tarala. See Dkt. No. 17 at 12-15. Magistrate Judge Evangelista explained that the
ALJ noted the limitations identified by Dr. Tarala, but concluded that Dr. Tarala’s medical opinion
was unpersuasive because “it is not supported by the majority of objective medical findings of
record and is not consistent with State agency findings or internal consultative examination[.]” Id.
at 12-13 (citing Dkt. No. 9 at 28). Specifically, Magistrate Judge Evangelista found that, while
the record contains many of Dr. Tarala’s treatment records documenting Plaintiff’s reports of pain
and physical limitations, Dr. Tarala’s medical opinion does not cite to any evidence or provide any
explanation regarding how Dr. Tarala reached his conclusions with respect to Plaintiff’s
limitations. Id. at 13 (citing, inter alia, Dkt. No. 9 at 28, 856-58). Magistrate Judge Evangelista
also noted that the ALJ explained that Plaintiff’s allegations regarding the severity of her
symptoms are inconsistent with the objective medical evidence of record because “records from
2022 	indicated 	that 	Plaintiff 	experienced 	mostly 	mild 	to 	moderate 	symptoms 	from 	her
impairments, which were effectively managed with conservative treatment, in 2023, [Plaintiff’s]
symptoms and impairments continued to be effectively managed, and records from 2024 indicate
Case 5:24-cv-01365-AMN-PJE Document 18 Filed 03/13/26 Page 3 of 5

4
that [Plaintiff] continued to experience mostly mild to moderate symptoms from her impairments,
which continued to be effectively managed with conservative treatment.” Id. (citing Dkt. No. 9 at
25-26) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). 	Thus, Magistrate Judge Evangelista
concluded that “‘[P]laintiff’s argument amounts to a disagreement with how the ALJ weighed the
evidence, which is within the ALJ’s province to do,’” and “constitutes a ‘post-hoc rationalization
that cannot serve as a substitute’ for the support [that] Dr. Tarala failed to articulate in his opinion.”
Id. at 14-15 (quoting Joseph J. B. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 23-cv-652, 2024 WL 4217371, at
*11 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2024), report and recommendation adopted, 2024 WL 4216048
(N.D.N.Y. Sept. 17, 2024); Wagner v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 435 F. Supp. 3d 509, 516 (W.D.N.Y.
2020)) (brackets omitted). Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Evangelista concluded that the ALJ’s
determination is supported by substantial evidence. Id. at 13.
Additionally, Magistrate Judge Evangelista concluded that the ALJ did not err in her
assessment of the consistency of Dr. Tarala’s medical opinion regarding the September 2023 nerve
conduction examination. 	Id. at 15-17. 	Specifically, Magistrate Judge Evangelista found that
Plaintiff conflates the supportability and consistency factors, explaining that the ALJ did not reject
Plaintiff’s fibromyalgia diagnosis or conclude that Plaintiff did not receive fibromyalgia treatment
from Dr. Tarala. Id. at 16-17 (citing, inter alia, Rosario v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec, No. 20-cv-7749,
2022 WL 819810, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2022) (noting that supportability focuses on “the fit
between the medical opinion offered by the source and the underlying evidence presented by that
source to support his or her opinion,” while consistency “focuse[s] on how well a medical source
opinion is supported, or not supported, by the entire record” (internal quotation marks, citations,
and alterations omitted))). Rather, Magistrate Judge Evangelista found that the ALJ rejected Dr.
Tarala’s opinion because the severity of Plaintiff’s limitations as listed in Dr. Tarala’s medical
Case 5:24-cv-01365-AMN-PJE Document 18 Filed 03/13/26 Page 4 of 5

5
source statement were inconsistent with the results of the nerve conduction examination Plaintiff
underwent and the limitations described by the nerve conduction examiner. Id. (citing Dkt. No. 9
at 28, 854-56).
Accordingly, having reviewed the Report-Recommendation for clear error, and found
none, the Court adopts the Report-Recommendation in its entirety.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court hereby
ORDERS that the Report-Recommendation, Dkt. No. 17, is ADOPTED in its entirety;
and the Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiff’s motion, Dkt. No. 13, is DENIED; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Commissioner’s motion, Dkt. No. 15, 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 Order on all parties in accordance with the
Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 13, 2026
Albany, New York
Case 5:24-cv-01365-AMN-PJE Document 18 Filed 03/13/26 Page 5 of 5