Lamont v. Commissioner of Social Security

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
________________________________________
KARA L.,
Plaintiff,
v. 	5:25-cv-00086
(ML)
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
________________________________________
APPEARANCES: 	OF COUNSEL:
OLINSKY LAW GROUP 	JULIE ATKINS, ESQ.
Counsel for the Plaintiff
250 South Clinton Street - Suite 210
Syracuse, New York 13202
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 	FERGUS J. KAISER, ESQ.
Counsel for the Defendant 	Special Assistant U.S. Attorney
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, Maryland 21235
MIROSLAV LOVRIC, United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER
Currently pending before the Court in this action, in which Plaintiff seeks judicial review
of an adverse administrative determination by the Commissioner of Social Security, pursuant to
42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), are cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings.1 Oral argument was
heard in connection with those motions on March 20, 2026, during a telephone conference
1 	This matter, which is before me on consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c),
has been treated in accordance with the procedures set forth in General Order No. 18. Under
that General Order once issue has been joined, an action such as this is considered procedurally,
as if cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings had been filed pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Case 5:25-cv-00086-ML Document 22 Filed 03/24/26 Page 1 of 12

2
conducted on the record. At the close of argument, I issued a bench decision in which, after
applying the requisite deferential review standard, I found that the Commissioner’s
determination was not supported by substantial evidence, providing further detail regarding my
reasoning and addressing the specific issues raised by Plaintiff in this appeal.
After due deliberation, and based upon the Court’s oral bench decision, which has been
transcribed, is attached to this order, and is incorporated herein by reference, it is
ORDERED as follows:
1) 	Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 11) is GRANTED.
2) 	Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 16) is DENIED.
3) 	The Commissioner’s decision denying Plaintiff Social Security benefits is
REVERSED.
4) 	This matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner, without a directed finding of
disability, for further administrative proceedings consistent with this opinion and the oral bench
decision, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
5) 	The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment, based upon this
determination, REMANDING this matter to the Commissioner for further administrative
proceedings consistent with this opinion and the oral bench decision, pursuant to sentence four
of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and closing this case.
Dated: March 24, 2026
Binghamton, New York
____________________________________
Miroslav Lovric
United States Magistrate Judge
Northern District of New York
Case 5:25-cv-00086-ML Document 22 Filed 03/24/26 Page 2 of 12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------x
KARA L.,
Plaintiff,
-v- 25-CV-86
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION TRANSCRIPT
BEFORE THE HONORABLE MIROSLAV LOVRIC
March 23, 2026
15 Henry Street, Binghamton, NY 13901
For the Plaintiff:
OLINSKY LAW GROUP
250 South Clinton Street - Suite 210
Syracuse, New York 13202
BY: JULIE ATKINS, ESQ.
For the Defendant:
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, Maryland 21235
BY: FERGUS J. KAISER, ESQ.
Hannah F. Cavanaugh, RPR, CRR, CSR, NYACR, NYRCR
Official United States Court Reporter
100 South Clinton Street
Syracuse, New York 13261-7367
(315) 234-8545
Case 5:25-cv-00086-ML Document 22 Filed 03/24/26 Page 3 of 12

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KARA L. v. SOCIAL SECURITY
HANNAH F. CAVANAUGH, RPR, CRR, CSR, NYACR, NYRCR
(315) 234-8545
2
(The Court and all parties present by telephone.
Time noted: 12:10 p.m.)
THE COURT: All right. The Court is going to
commence its reasoning, analysis, and decision as follows:
Plaintiff commenced this proceeding pursuant to Title 42, United
States Code, Section 405(g) to challenge the adverse
determination by the Commissioner of Social Security finding
that she was not disabled at the relevant times and therefore
ineligible for the benefits that she sought.
By way of background, the Court notes as follows:
Plaintiff was born in 1979. She is currently approximately
47 years of age. She was approximately 42 years of age on the
date of her application for benefits. At the time of her
administrative hearing on April 18, 2024, plaintiff lived with
her boyfriend and her young son. She is a high school graduate
who attended two years of college and two years of nursing
school, but did not obtain a degree. Plaintiff's work history
includes jobs as a grocery store cashier, certified nursing
aide, and medical office assistant. Plaintiff testified that
she stopped working due to leg and back pain that required
surgery. Following surgery, plaintiff still reported numbness
and pain that was exacerbated by bending, prolonged standing,
and walking. At the time of the hearing, plaintiff was
receiving outpatient mental health therapy on a weekly basis.
Procedurally, the Court notes the following:
Case 5:25-cv-00086-ML Document 22 Filed 03/24/26 Page 4 of 12

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KARA L. v. SOCIAL SECURITY
HANNAH F. CAVANAUGH, RPR, CRR, CSR, NYACR, NYRCR
(315) 234-8545
3
Plaintiff applied for Title II and Title XVI benefits on
November 24th of 2021, alleging an onset date of April 9, 2019.
In support of her application for benefits, plaintiff claims
disability based on back -- excuse me, based on back pain,
depression, and anxiety. Administrative Law Judge Bruce S. Fein
conducted a hearing on April 18th of 2024, to address
plaintiff's applications for benefits. ALJ Fein issued an
unfavorable decision on April 26th of 2024. That decision
became the final determination of the agency on December 10th of
2024, when the Appeals Council denied plaintiff's request for
review. This civil action was commenced on January 16, 2025,
and it is timely.
In his April 26th of 2024, decision at issue in this
case, the ALJ first determined that plaintiff met the insured
status requirements of the Social Security Act through
March 31st of 2026, and then the ALJ commenced the familiar five
step test for determining disability.
At step one, the plaintiff -- excuse me, the ALJ
concluded that plaintiff had engaged -- had not -- excuse me,
just one second. Let me start that over.
At step one, the ALJ concluded that plaintiff had
engaged in substantial gainful activity between May 2022 and
December 2022, based on earnings records for work as a grocery
store cashier. However, the ALJ found that there had been one
or more continuous 12 month period during which she did not
Case 5:25-cv-00086-ML Document 22 Filed 03/24/26 Page 5 of 12

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KARA L. v. SOCIAL SECURITY
HANNAH F. CAVANAUGH, RPR, CRR, CSR, NYACR, NYRCR
(315) 234-8545
4
engage in substantial gainful activity after the alleged onset
date. The ALJ's disability determination covered those periods.
At step two, the ALJ concluded that plaintiff had the
following severe impairments: First, lumbar disc disease with
radiculopathy; second, post lumbar decompression and fusion of
L4-S1; next, post anterior surgical fixation and fusion
surgeries at C5-C6; rheumatoid arthritis; anxiety disorder; and
major depressive disorder.
At step three, the ALJ concluded that plaintiff did
not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or
medically equalled the severity of any listed impairments. In
making this determination, the ALJ expressly considered the
following listings: Listing 1.15 dealing with disorders of the
skeletal spine; listing 1.16 dealing with lumbar spinal
stenosis; listing 12.04 dealing with depressive, bipolar, and
related disorders; listing 12.06 dealing with anxiety and
obsessive-compulsive disorders; and listing 14.09 dealing with
inflammatory arthritis.
Next, the ALJ determined that plaintiff has the
residual functional capacity, also known as RFC, to perform less
than the full range of light work. Specifically, the ALJ
concluded the following: The ALJ concluded that plaintiff can
perform all postural tasks on an occasional basis, can
occasionally push and pull bilaterally, and can occasionally
interact with coworkers, supervisors, and the public. The ALJ
Case 5:25-cv-00086-ML Document 22 Filed 03/24/26 Page 6 of 12

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KARA L. v. SOCIAL SECURITY
HANNAH F. CAVANAUGH, RPR, CRR, CSR, NYACR, NYRCR
(315) 234-8545
5
further found that plaintiff should work in a low stress job,
defined as one "having only occasional decisionmaking, changes
in work setting, and judgment required on the job."
At step four, the ALJ relied on the vocational expert
testimony to determine that plaintiff is not able to perform any
past relevant work.
Again relying on the vocational expert testimony at
step five, the ALJ found that considering plaintiff's age,
education, work experience, and RFC, that there were jobs
existing in significant numbers in the national economy that
plaintiff can perform.
Accordingly, the ALJ found that plaintiff was not
disabled from her alleged onset date through the date of the
ALJ's decision.
Turning now to plaintiff's arguments in this matter,
as the parties know, this Court's functional role in this case
is limited and extremely deferential. The Court must determine
whether correct legal principles were applied and whether the
determination is supported by substantial evidence, which is
defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind would
find sufficient to support a conclusion. As the Second Circuit
noted in Brault v. Social Security Administration Commissioner,
at 683 F.3d 443, that's a 2012 case, the Circuit therein
indicated that this standard is demanding, more so than the
clearly erroneous standard. The Second Circuit noted in Brault
Case 5:25-cv-00086-ML Document 22 Filed 03/24/26 Page 7 of 12

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KARA L. v. SOCIAL SECURITY
HANNAH F. CAVANAUGH, RPR, CRR, CSR, NYACR, NYRCR
(315) 234-8545
6
that once there is a finding of fact, that fact can be rejected
only if a reasonable factfinder would have to conclude
otherwise.
In this case, plaintiff raises two primary
contentions in these proceedings. First, plaintiff argues that
the Appeals Council failed to properly consider new and material
evidence. Specifically, plaintiff alleges and challenges that
the Appeals Council's refusal to consider Dr. Bradley Layton's
previously unavailable opinion of plaintiff's physical and
mental health limitations based on his 11 years as plaintiff's
primary care physician. Secondly, plaintiff also argues that
the ALJ failed to properly evaluate the medical opinion
evidence. In particular, plaintiff contends that the ALJ failed
to incorporate the "moderate to marked" limitations opined by
consultive psychiatric examiner Dr. Jeanne Shapiro into the RFC
determination, despite labeling Dr. Shapiro's opinion as
"persuasive."
The Court will now turn to its reasoning, analysis,
and decision. This Court finds that remand for further
administrative proceedings is required to allow for proper
consideration of the new and material evidence presented to the
Appeals Council, for the following reasons: Dr. Layton opined
in relevant part that plaintiff can rarely lift 10 pounds, that
plaintiff can sit for 45 minutes to 1 hour at one time, and
stand for 20 minutes continuously before needing to change
Case 5:25-cv-00086-ML Document 22 Filed 03/24/26 Page 8 of 12

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KARA L. v. SOCIAL SECURITY
HANNAH F. CAVANAUGH, RPR, CRR, CSR, NYACR, NYRCR
(315) 234-8545
7
positions. Dr. Layton also opined that plaintiff can sit for a
total of about two hours and standing or walking for a total of
about two hours over the course of the workday.
Dr. Layton further opined that plaintiff would need
four to five breaks throughout the workday and was unable to
meet the competitive standards for regular attendance,
performing at a consistent pace, and responding appropriately to
changes in routine. He further opined that plaintiff would be
off task for more than 20 percent of the workday and was likely
to miss more than four workdays per month.
Dr. Layton's April 29, 2024, opinion is clearly
"new" -- is clearly "new" since it is dated three days after the
ALJ's decision, and thus was unavailable at the time of the
ALJ's disability determination. This Court also finds that
plaintiff had good cause for failing to provide the document
earlier, because the record and the hearing transcript reflect
plaintiff's ongoing efforts to obtain up to date medical records
from Dr. Layton and other providers.
Moving then to materiality, this Court finds that Dr.
Layton's opinion is material, in that it expressly relates back
to at least April 9th of 2019, and provides an assessment of
plaintiff's physical and mental health functional limitations
based upon the primary care provider's 11-year treatment
relationship with the plaintiff.
Dr. Layton's treatment notes, some of which were
Case 5:25-cv-00086-ML Document 22 Filed 03/24/26 Page 9 of 12

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KARA L. v. SOCIAL SECURITY
HANNAH F. CAVANAUGH, RPR, CRR, CSR, NYACR, NYRCR
(315) 234-8545
8
included in the record before the ALJ and others which were
submitted to the Appeals Council, reflect the primary care
physician's involvement in plaintiff's care for back pain,
anxiety, and depression and his multiple referrals of plaintiff
for specialized orthopedic, pain management, rheumatology, and
mental health care.
In addition, the only medical opinions available to
the ALJ were from consultants who either reviewed the available
medical record or performed a single consultive examination, an
approach that is not always indicative of an individual's
longitudinal health. Dr. Layton's opinion is significantly more
restrictive than any of these consulting opinions. It thus
appears a "more than reasonable" possibility that the opinion of
plaintiff's primary care physician, who had direct observation
of plaintiff's physical and mental health over an 11-year
period, could influence the ALJ to reach a different disability
determination.
Therefore, remand for further administrative
proceedings to consider this new and material evidence is
appropriate. By ordering remand, this Court is not making any
comment on how persuasive the ALJ should find this new evidence.
Moving briefly to plaintiff's second argument, this
Court finds that it does not present independent grounds for
remand on the record.
Plaintiff argues that the ALJ ignored Dr. Shapiro's
Case 5:25-cv-00086-ML Document 22 Filed 03/24/26 Page 10 of 12

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KARA L. v. SOCIAL SECURITY
HANNAH F. CAVANAUGH, RPR, CRR, CSR, NYACR, NYRCR
(315) 234-8545
9
opinion that plaintiff had "moderate to marked" limitations in
regulating emotions, controlling behavior, and maintaining
wellbeing. However, the ALJ's RFC determination limited
plaintiff to jobs that required only occasional social
interaction and could be classified as "low stress" because they
required only occasional decisionmaking, changes in work
setting, and exercise of judgment.
Courts have regularly found that an RFC limiting an
individual to low stress work with only occasional social
interaction, simple decisionmaking, and changes in the work
setting are compatible with the "moderate to marked" limitations
assessed by Dr. Shapiro. Therefore, any error in the ALJ's
discussion of Dr. Shapiro's opinion would be harmless.
This Court notes that consideration of Dr. Layton's
opinion, which includes a mental health component, will likely
require reassessment of the supportability and consistency of
Dr. Shapiro's opinion on remand, as well.
Accordingly, and based upon this analysis,
plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted,
defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied, and
the matter is reversed and remanded to the Commissioner pursuant
to sentence four of Title 42, U.S. Code, Section 405(g) for
further proceedings consistent with this decision and order.
(Time noted: 12:24 p.m.)
Case 5:25-cv-00086-ML Document 22 Filed 03/24/26 Page 11 of 12

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER
I, HANNAH F. CAVANAUGH, RPR, CRR, CSR, NYACR,
NYRCR, Official U.S. Court Reporter, in and for the United
States District Court for the Northern District of New York, DO
HEREBY CERTIFY that pursuant to Section 753, Title 28, United
States Code, that the foregoing is a true and correct transcript
of the stenographically reported proceedings held in the
above-entitled matter and that the transcript page format is in
conformance with the regulations of the Judicial Conference of
the United States.
Dated this 23rd day of March, 2026.
s/ Hannah F. Cavanaugh______________________
HANNAH F. CAVANAUGH, RPR, CRR, CSR, NYACR, NYRCR
Official U.S. Court Reporter
Case 5:25-cv-00086-ML Document 22 Filed 03/24/26 Page 12 of 12