Lancto v. Bisignano

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
JEFFREY A. L.,
Plaintiff,
v. 	8:24-cv-01084 (AMN/PJE)
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
APPEARANCES: 	OF COUNSEL:
HILLER COMERFORD 	JUSTIN M. GOLDSTEIN, ESQ.
INJURY & DISABILITY LAW
6000 North Bailey Avenue – Suite 1a
Amherst, New York 14226
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 	FERGUS J. KAISER, 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 September 6, 2024, Plaintiff Jeffrey A. L.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 his 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 8:24-cv-01084-AMN-PJE Document 17 Filed 02/04/26 Page 1 of 6

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 December 18, 2025, recommended that the Court grant Plaintiff’s cross-motion for judgment
on the pleadings, Dkt. No. 12, deny the Commissioner’s cross-motion for judgment on the
pleadings, Dkt. No. 14, and reverse and remand the Commissioner’s decision for further
proceedings. 	Dkt. No. 16 (“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 19.2 	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 8:24-cv-01084-AMN-PJE Document 17 Filed 02/04/26 Page 2 of 6

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 findings of the Administrative Law
Judge (“ALJ”) in this matter are unsupported by substantial evidence because the ALJ failed to
consider evidence generated after the date last insured, here, December 31, 2016. See Dkt. No. 16
at 12-13. To determine whether an individual is entitled to disability benefits, under step two of
the five-step analysis, the Commissioner must determine “whether medical evidence establishes
an impairment or combination of impairments of such severity as to be the basis of a finding of
inability to engage in any substantial gainful employment.” Loni S. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No.
22-cv-805, 2023 WL 4195887, at *10 (N.D.N.Y. June 27, 2023) (internal quotation marks,
citations, and brackets omitted). Magistrate Judge Evangelista noted that the ALJ determined that
Plaintiff did not have a severe impairment or combination of impairments because Plaintiff did not
have an impairment or 	combination of impairments for twelve consecutive months that
significantly limited his ability to perform basic work-related activities for twelve consecutive
months. Dkt. No. 16 at 12 (quoting Dkt. No. 8-2 at 19-20). Magistrate Judge Evangelista found
that the ALJ reached this determination by considering Plaintiff’s testimony and 2011 medical
Case 8:24-cv-01084-AMN-PJE Document 17 Filed 02/04/26 Page 3 of 6

4
records, but did not list, discuss, or meaningfully analyze any of Plaintiff’s medical and treatment
records following the date last insured. Id. at 13 (citing Dkt. No. 8-2 at 17-27).
Magistrate Judge Evangelista found that Plaintiff justifiably relied on the Court’s decision
in Matthew P., which holds that a plaintiff can satisfy the standard for analyzing claims at step two
with evidence from before or after the relevant time period. 	Id. at 15-16 (citing Matthew P. v.
Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 20-cv-1586, 2021 WL 5629070, at *6 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 1, 2021)).
Magistrate Judge Evangelista noted that most of Plaintiff’s conditions described in his medical and
treatment records from 2017 to 2019 appear to be the same or similar conditions that Plaintiff was
treated for in 2011. See id. at 13-14. Specifically, Magistrate Judge Evangelista found that the
ALJ erred in failing to consider Plaintiff’s August 21, 2018 treatment record, which noted that
Plaintiff “was suffering from back pain for ‘the past several months’ and had associated pain that
radiated down his right leg for ‘45 weeks’ prior,” i.e., beginning approximately ten months after
the date last insured. Id. at 16 (citing Dkt. No. 8-9 at 921). Thus, Magistrate Judge Evangelista
concluded that these records “may demonstrate at least di minimis evidence that [P]laintiff suffered
from a severe impairment during the relevant period that precluded him from performing ‘basic
work activities.’” 	Id. at 14 (quoting Loni S., 2023 WL 4195887, at *10-11). 	Accordingly,
Magistrate Judge Evangelista concluded that the ALJ’s step-two determination is unsupported by
substantial evidence and remand is required to consider the evidence dated after December 31,
2016. Id. at 15.
Additionally, Magistrate Judge Evangelista recommended that the ALJ be instructed to
consider 	on 	remand 	whether 	chronic 	obstructive 	pulmonary 	disease 	constitutes 	a 	severe
impairment, because it was not analyzed by the ALJ in his decision. 	See id. at 17. 	Magistrate
Judge Evangelista also recommended that the ALJ be instructed to reevaluate his conclusions
Case 8:24-cv-01084-AMN-PJE Document 17 Filed 02/04/26 Page 4 of 6

5
regarding the supportability and consistency factors of Dr. Elke Lorensen’s opinion and the prior
administrative medical findings after considering the evidence generated after December 31, 2016.
Id.
Finally, Magistrate Judge Evangelista declined to determine whether the ALJ erred in
failing to order additional medical opinions and medical expert testimony to reach its step-two
determination. Id. at 17-18. Magistrate Judge Evangelista concluded that it would be improper to
“pre-adjudicate the ALJ’s determination on remand.” Id. at 18 (collecting cases).
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. 16, is ADOPTED in its entirety;
and the Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiff’s cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings, Dkt. No. 12, is
GRANTED; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Commissioner’s cross-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 further proceedings; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on all parties in accordance with the
Local Rules.
Case 8:24-cv-01084-AMN-PJE Document 17 Filed 02/04/26 Page 5 of 6

6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 4, 2026
Albany, New York
Case 8:24-cv-01084-AMN-PJE Document 17 Filed 02/04/26 Page 6 of 6