Hanson v. Commissioner of Social Security

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
________________________________________
TRAVIS H.,
Plaintiff,
v. 	5:25-CV-00133
(ML)
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
________________________________________
APPEARANCES: 	OF COUNSEL:
OLINSKY LAW GROUP 	HOWARD D. OLINSKY, 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 19, 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-00133-ML Document 20 Filed 03/19/26 Page 1 of 14

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. 12) is GRANTED.
2) 	Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 17) 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 19, 2026
Binghamton, New York
____________________________________
Miroslav Lovric
United States Magistrate Judge
Northern District of New York
Case 5:25-cv-00133-ML Document 20 Filed 03/19/26 Page 2 of 14

UNITED STATES 	DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------x
TRAVIS HANK H.,
Plaintiff,
vs. 	5:25-CV-133
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
--------------------------------------------x
Transcript of a 	Decision 	held during a
Telephone Conference on March 19, 2026, the
HONORABLE MIROSLAV LOVRIC, United States Magistrate
Judge, Presiding.
A P P E A R A N C E S
(By Telephone)
For Plaintiff: 	OLINSKY LAW GROUP
Attorneys at Law
250 South Clinton Street - Suite 210
Syracuse, New York 	13202
BY: 	HOWARD D. OLINSKY, ESQ.
For Defendant: 	SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Office of the General Counsel
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, Maryland 	21235
BY: 	FERGUS J. KAISER, ESQ.
Jodi L. Hibbard, RPR, CSR, CRR
Official United States Court Reporter
100 South Clinton Street
Syracuse, New York 	13261-7367
(315) 234-8547
Case 5:25-cv-00133-ML Document 20 Filed 03/19/26 Page 3 of 14

2
JODI L. HIBBARD, RMR, CRR, CSR
(315) 234-8547
(The Court and all counsel present by
telephone.)
THE COURT: 	All right. 	Well, the Court's going to
begin its reasoning, analysis, and decision as follows.
Plaintiff has 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 he was not disabled at the relevant times and
therefore ineligible for the benefits that he sought.
By way of background, the Court notes as follows.
Plaintiff was born in 1980. 	He is currently approximately 45
years of age. 	He was approximately 42 years of age on the
date of his application for benefits. 	At the time of his
administrative hearing on January 19th of 2024, plaintiff
resided with his wife and young son. 	Plaintiff stands
approximately 5 feet 11 inches in height and weighs
approximately 283 pounds. 	Plaintiff is a high school
graduate who attended regular education classes and
subsequently obtained a bachelor's degree. 	Plaintiff served
in the Marine Corps from 2002 to 2006, including three combat
deployments in Iraq. 	Plaintiff reported that he left the
military due to post-traumatic stress disorder related to his
combat experience. 	Following his discharge from the
military, plaintiff served several years as a police officer.
After leaving the police department, plaintiff has held
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
Case 5:25-cv-00133-ML Document 20 Filed 03/19/26 Page 4 of 14

3
JODI L. HIBBARD, RMR, CRR, CSR
(315) 234-8547
short-term employment positions as a security guard, assembly
line worker, and a lawn service employee.
Plaintiff attributes a number of his physical
impairments to his time in the military, including a
traumatic brain injury, hearing loss, and lower back pain.
Since leaving the military, plaintiff has received outpatient
psychiatric care through the Veterans Affairs, also known as
the VA, that being the Veterans Affairs medical system, for
symptoms including panic attacks, hallucinations,
irritability, and hypervigilance. 	In October of 2022,
plaintiff was hospitalized for four days due to suicidal
ideation.
Procedurally, the Court notes as follows in this
case. 	Plaintiff applied for Title II benefits on July 3rd of
2022, alleging an onset date of February 1 of 2022. 	In
support of his application for benefits, plaintiff claimed
disability based on a number of physical and mental health
impairments, including PTSD, lower lumbar strain, tinnitus,
knee injuries, and asthma.
Administrative Law Judge Mary Jane Pelton conducted
a hearing on January 19th, 2024 to address plaintiff's
application for benefits. 	ALJ Pelton issued an unfavorable
decision on February 23rd of 2024. 	That decision became the
final determination of the Agency on December 12th of 2024
when the Appeals Council denied plaintiff's request for
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
Case 5:25-cv-00133-ML Document 20 Filed 03/19/26 Page 5 of 14

4
JODI L. HIBBARD, RMR, CRR, CSR
(315) 234-8547
review. 	This action was commenced on January 29th of 2025
and it is timely.
In her February 23rd, 2024 decision at issue in
this case, the ALJ first determined that plaintiff met the
insured status requirements of the Social Security Act
through December 31 of 2022 and then the ALJ commenced the
familiar five-step test for determining disability.
At step one, the ALJ concluded that plaintiff had
not engaged in substantial gainful activity from his alleged
onset date of February 1, 2022 through his date last insured
of December 31st of 2022.
At step two, the ALJ concluded that plaintiff had
the following severe impairments through his date last
insured: 	That being, degenerative disk disease of the lumbar
spine, degenerative joint disease of the left knee, PTSD, and
depressive disorder.
At step three, the ALJ concluded that plaintiff did
not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met
or medically equaled the severity of one of the listed
impairments. 	In making this determination, the ALJ expressly
considered Listings 1.15, dealing with disorders of the
skeletal spine; 1.16, dealing with lumbar spinal stenosis;
Listing 1.18, dealing with abnormality of a major joint;
Listing 12.04, dealing with depressive, bipolar, and related
disorders; and lastly, Listing 12.15, dealing with trauma and
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
Case 5:25-cv-00133-ML Document 20 Filed 03/19/26 Page 6 of 14

5
JODI L. HIBBARD, RMR, CRR, CSR
(315) 234-8547
stressor-related disorders.
Next, the ALJ determined that plaintiff has the
residual functional capacity, also referred to as RFC, to
perform less than the full range of medium work through the
date last insured. 	Specifically, the ALJ found as follows:
That plaintiff could frequently stoop, kneel, crouch, and
crawl; that plaintiff should avoid concentrated exposure to
extreme cold, fumes, dusts, gases, and poor ventilation; that
plaintiff could understand, remember, and carry out simple
instructions; could use judgment to make simple work-related
decisions; and that plaintiff should work in a job with
occasional changes in the routine work setting. 	The ALJ also
found that plaintiff could not perform work requiring a
specific production rate or perform work that required hourly
quotas. 	The V -- excuse me, the ALJ also concluded plaintiff
could have occasional interaction with coworkers and
supervisors and no interaction with the public. 	And lastly,
the ALJ concluded that plaintiff was limited to working in a
moderate noise level environment.
At step four, the ALJ determined that plaintiff was
unable to perform any past relevant work through the date
last insured.
Next, at step five, the ALJ relied on the
vocational expert testimony to find that, considering
plaintiff's age, education, work experience, and RFC, that
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
Case 5:25-cv-00133-ML Document 20 Filed 03/19/26 Page 7 of 14

6
JODI L. HIBBARD, RMR, CRR, CSR
(315) 234-8547
there were jobs existing in significant numbers in the
national economy that plaintiff could perform through the
date last insured.
And then lastly, accordingly, the ALJ found that
and concluded that plaintiff was not disabled at the time
from the alleged onset date of February 1, 2022 through the
date last insured of December 31st of 2022.
The Court next turns to plaintiff's arguments in
this matter. 	First, the Court begins by reminding the
parties that 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 has noted in 	Brault v. Social Security Administration
Commissioner, 683 F.3d 443, a 2012 Second Circuit case, this
standard is demanding, more so than the clearly erroneous
standard. 	The court noted in 	Brault 	that once there is a
finding of fact, that fact can be rejected only if a
reasonable factfinder would have to conclude otherwise.
Plaintiff contends that the ALJ failed to properly
consider plaintiff's Veterans Affairs medical and mental
health records when analyzing the Listing requirements and
when reaching her RFC determination, because, as the
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
Case 5:25-cv-00133-ML Document 20 Filed 03/19/26 Page 8 of 14

7
JODI L. HIBBARD, RMR, CRR, CSR
(315) 234-8547
plaintiff argues, the ALJ only made vague reference to that
extensive volume of records and failed to cite any specific
treatment notes to support her conclusions.
The Court next turns to its analysis and decision
in this case. 	This Court finds that remand for further
administrative proceedings is required to allow the ALJ to
properly evaluate plaintiff's mental health treatment records
and to provide an adequate explanation for her assessment of
the listing criteria and the functional limitations in
plaintiff's RFC. 	And the Court concludes that for the
following reasons.
First, this Court recognizes that ALJs are not
required to reconcile every conflicting shred of evidence in
their decisions. 	However, it is equally true that ALJs must
discuss the evidence and factors "crucial" to the disability
determination with "sufficient specificity to enable [this
Court] to decide whether the determination is supported by
substantial evidence." 	Put another way, an ALJ must "build
an accurate and logical bridge" from the evidence to her
conclusion to enable a meaningful review.
Plaintiff correctly notes that the overwhelming
majority of the medical and mental health notes in the
Administrative Record derive from plaintiff's treatment in
the VA medical system, with the limited exception of the
physical and psychiatric consultative examination reports
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
Case 5:25-cv-00133-ML Document 20 Filed 03/19/26 Page 9 of 14

8
JODI L. HIBBARD, RMR, CRR, CSR
(315) 234-8547
performed in connection with his benefits application.
As part of her analysis of the Listing criteria for
mental health impairments at step three of the sequential
evaluation, the ALJ was required to consider whether
plaintiff satisfied the paragraph B criteria. 	That is, the
ALJ had to assess whether plaintiff had an "extreme
limitation in one" or "marked limitations in two" of the four
areas of mental functioning. 	And those areas being: 	One,
understanding, remembering, or applying information; two,
interacting with others; three, concentrating, persisting, or
maintaining pace; and four, adapting or managing oneself.
Despite the volume of VA treatment notes in the
record, the ALJ's paragraph B analysis relies almost
exclusively on the consultative psychiatric examination
report prepared by Dr. Dennis Noia in September of 2022.
This raises questions regarding the validity of that
analysis.
The Second Circuit has "frequently cautioned that
ALJs should not rely heavily on the findings of consultative
physicians after a single examination ... This is even more
pronounced in the context of mental illness where ... a
one-time snapshot of a claimant's status may not be
indicative of [his] longitudinal mental health." 	For this
proposition, see case 	Estrella v. Berryhill, 925 F.3d 90 at
page 98, that's a Second Circuit 2019 case. 	See also case of
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
Case 5:25-cv-00133-ML Document 20 Filed 03/19/26 Page 10 of 14

9
JODI L. HIBBARD, RMR, CRR, CSR
(315) 234-8547
Sheenalee D. v. Commissioner of Social Security 	at
8:19-CV-140, and that is a District Court Thomas J. McAvoy
case along with Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter, and that
can be found at 2020 WL 1034396, at *5, and that's a Northern
District New York February 3rd, 2020 case, and therein, the
magistrate judge recommending remand where ALJ's paragraph B
analysis was based solely on single consultative examination
report. 	And that report and recommendation was adopted by
District Judge McAvoy and that adoption and decision is found
at 2020 WL 1030652, Northern District New York, March 3rd,
2020 decision.
That caution would seem especially appropriate
here, where the consultative examination occurred one month
prior to plaintiff being hospitalized after contacting a
crisis hotline and expressing a desire to shoot himself in
the head.
The ALJ's RFC analysis suggests a similarly
inadequate review. 	As plaintiff's brief illustrates, the ALJ
relied on broad citations to the VA mental health records
that cover hundreds of pages of treatment notes. 	For
example, the ALJ characterizes a series of mental status
examinations conducted by the VA staff as "unremarkable" or
"within normal limits" but references no specific findings to
support this conclusion and, instead, the ALJ makes a series
of blanket citations to the record that cover a period from
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
Case 5:25-cv-00133-ML Document 20 Filed 03/19/26 Page 11 of 14

10
JODI L. HIBBARD, RMR, CRR, CSR
(315) 234-8547
June 2020 to August of 2023 and ultimately encompass 1609
pages. 	Many of the records included in these vague citations
are unrelated to mental health. 	Such generic references to
the treatment record do not satisfy the substantial evidence
requirement because they fail to explain what evidence the
ALJ actually utilized to reach her decision. 	See case of
Rick Paul B. v. Commissioner of Social Security,
5:23-CV-1261, that is a District Court -- that is a District
Judge Mae D'Agostino decision, along with Magistrate Judge
Thérèse Dancks, and that is found at 2025 WL 347642, at *6,
Northern District New York, January 10th, 2025 decision, and
therein, the district judge setting forth a collection of
cases for this proposition.
The Commissioner's brief identifies some individual
treatment notes that could support the ALJ's decision had she
cited them, but she did not. 	This Court may not affirm the
ALJ's decision solely on those post-hoc rationalizations.
Because the ALJ failed to build the accurate and logical
bridge necessary for this Court to evaluate the evidence
behind her disability determination, remand is required so
that the ALJ may adequately explain her reasoning in the
written decision.
Accordingly, it is this Court's decision that
plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted.
Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied,
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
Case 5:25-cv-00133-ML Document 20 Filed 03/19/26 Page 12 of 14

11
JODI L. HIBBARD, RMR, CRR, CSR
(315) 234-8547
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.
That constitutes the decision of this court.
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
Case 5:25-cv-00133-ML Document 20 Filed 03/19/26 Page 13 of 14

JODI L. HIBBARD, RMR, CRR, CSR
(315) 234-8547
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER
I, JODI L. HIBBARD, RMR, CRR, CSR, Federal
Official Realtime 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 19th day of March, 2026.
/S/ JODI L. HIBBARD
JODI L. HIBBARD, RMR, CRR, CSR
Official U.S. Court Reporter
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
Case 5:25-cv-00133-ML Document 20 Filed 03/19/26 Page 14 of 14