Lyndaker v. Commissioner of Social Security

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CHRISTINE L.
Plaintiff,
-v- 5:24-CV-193
COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL:
HILLER COMERFORD INJURY JUSTIN M. GOLDSTEIN, ESQ.
& DISABILITY LAW
Attorneys for Plaintiff
6000 North Bailey Avenue,
Suite 1a
Amherst, NY 14426
SOCIAL SECURITY VERNON NORWOOD, ESQ.
ADMINISTRATION
Attorneys for Defendant
Office of the General Counsel
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235
DAVID N. HURD
United States District Judge
Case 5:24-cv-00193-DNH-TWD Document 22 Filed 11/25/25 Page 1 of 6

- 2 -
ORDER ON REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
On February 8, 2024, plaintiff Christine L.1 (“plaintiff”) filed this civil
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) of the Social Security
Act (the “Act”) seeking judicial review of a final decision by the Commissioner
of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying her application for benefits. Dkt.
No. 1. Plaintiff also filed for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP
Application”), which was granted. Dkt. No. 3, 7.
Because plaintiff did not consent to the jurisdiction of a United States
Magistrate Judge, Dkt. No. 4, the matter was referred to U.S. Magistrate
Judge Thérèse Wiley Dancks for a Report & Recommendation (“R&R”). Dkt.
No. 5.
On May 9, 2024, the Commissioner filed a certified copy of the
Administrative Record, Dkt. No. 8, and the parties proceeded to brief the
matter in accordance with General Order 18, which provides that a district
court appeal from the Commissioner’s administrative denial of benefits be
treated as if the parties have filed cross-motions for judgment on the
pleadings, Dkt. Nos. 5, 13, 18, 19.
On September 30, 2025, Judge Dancks advised by R&R that the
plaintiff’s motion be denied, that the Commissioner’s motion be granted, and
1 In accordance with a May 1, 2018 memorandum issued by the Judicial Conference’s
Committee on Court Administration and Case Management and adopted as local practice in this
District, only claimant’s first name and last initial will be mentioned in this opinion.
Case 5:24-cv-00193-DNH-TWD Document 22 Filed 11/25/25 Page 2 of 6

- 3 -
that the Commissioner’s determination denying benefits be affirmed. Dkt.
No. 20. Judge Dancks advised that the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”)
decision “plainly demonstrates the ALJ considered the supportability and
consistency factors of the medical opinions and prior administrative medical
findings [(“PAMFs”)] with the record as a whole”, including “a thorough
discussion of Plaintiff’s medical records, the consultative examinations,
Plaintiff’s activities of daily living, and her testimony.” Id. at 11–12.2 As to
the supportability facotr, Judge Dancks advised that plaintiff has failed to set
forth “a persuasive reason why the ALJ’s supportability rationale was
improper as to” a consultative examination performed by Dr. Lorensen. Id.
at 14. In addition, Judge Dancks advised that, while plaintiff objects to the
ALJ’s “relatively brief” explanation as to the supportability of the PAMFs of
State agency reviewing physicians Drs. Putcha and Vazquez Gonzalez, a
supportability explanation which merely sets forth that the PAMF was
“supported by a detailed narrative rationale” is sufficient in this Circuit. Id.
at 14. As to the consistency factor, Judge Dancks advised the ALJ properly
detailed that Pucha, Lorensen, and Vazquez Gonzelez each produced opinions
that were consistent with one another and consistent with plaintiff’s broad
[array] of daily activities.” Id. at 15.
2 Pagination corresponds to CM/ECF headers.
Case 5:24-cv-00193-DNH-TWD Document 22 Filed 11/25/25 Page 3 of 6

- 4 -
Turning to plaintiff’s mental RFC determination, Judge Dancks advised
that substantial evidence existed to support the ALJ’s findings and that the
ALJ did not rely on her own lay opinion in determining plaintiff’s RFC. Id. at
24. In support, Judge Dancks found that plaintiff’s daily activities, as
evidenced from the record, aligned with the ALJ’s finding. Id. Further,
Judge Dancks advised that the ALJ considered the opinions of Drs. Bruni,
Noia, and Haus, finding that they: had some persuasive value; were
supported by a review of the record; and were sufficiently consistent with
each other and with the mental status examinations on the record. Id. at 23.
Insofar as plaintiff takes issue with the ALJ’s finding that Dr. Noia’s opinion
was consistent with the mental status examinations on the record, Judge
Dancks advised that, contrary to plaintiff’s assertions, the ALJ carefully
reviewed the record in concluding that the clinical findings they relied upon
were consistent with Dr. Noia’s findings. Id. at 25–26.
Finally, Judge Dancks advised that the ALJ’s conclusion that the medical
opinion of Dr. Kwicklis was unpersuasive was correct. Id. at 29. Judge
Dancks advised that an ALJ is permitted to discount a physician’s opinion in
light of the record. Id. at 30. Further, Judge Dancks advised that the ALJ
did not discount Dr. Kwicklis’ opinion solely based on plaintiff’s daily living
activities, but rather upon having properly considered the consistency and
Case 5:24-cv-00193-DNH-TWD Document 22 Filed 11/25/25 Page 4 of 6

- 5 -
supportability of the opinion against other opinions in the record as well as
the record itself. Id. at 32.
Plaintiff has lodged an objection. Dkt. No. 21. First, plaintiff objects to
Judge Dancks’ finding that the ALJ did not err in her evaluation of the
PAMFs of Drs. Putcha or Vazquez Gonzelez or the consultative examination
conducted by Dr. Lorensen in reaching the physical portion of the residual
functional capacity (“RFC”) determination. Id. at 1. Plaintiff argues the ALJ
failed to identify substantial evidence supporting the RFC finding and failed
to apply the supportability factor to the PAMFs of Putcha and Vazquez
Gonzalez and failed to apply the consistency factor to the opinion of Lorensen
or to the PAMFs of Putcha and Vazquez Gonzalez. Id. at 1–10.
Next, plaintiff objects to Judge Dancks’ finding that the mental portion of
plaintiff’s RFC finding was supported by substantial evidence. Id. at 10.
Plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred by relying upon a mischaracterization
of the record in concluding that plaintiff’s mental status examinations were
normal and engaged in “impermissible cherry picking.” Id. at 11. Finally,
plaintiff objects to Judge Dancks’ finding that the ALJ did not err in finding
Dr. Kwicklis’ opinion to be unpersuasive. Id. at 14. Plaintiff argues that the
ALJ cherry-picked the record and did not apply a “factually accurate
analysis” of Dr. Kwicklis’ record under the supportability and consistency
Case 5:24-cv-00193-DNH-TWD Document 22 Filed 11/25/25 Page 5 of 6

- 6 -
factors. Id. Upon de novo review, Judge Dancks’ R&R is accepted and will be
adopted in all respects. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b).
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that
1. The Report & Recommendation is ACCEPTED;
2. Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED;
3. The Commissioner’s motion is GRANTED; and
4. The Commissioner’s final decision denying plaintiff’s benefits is
AFFIRMED;
The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the pending motion, enter
a judgment accordingly, and close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 25, 2025
Utica, New York.
Case 5:24-cv-00193-DNH-TWD Document 22 Filed 11/25/25 Page 6 of 6