Simonds v. Commissioner of Social Security

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
________________________________________
REBECCA S.,
Plaintiff,
v. 	6:24-CV-01121
(ML)
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
________________________________________
APPEARANCES: 	OF COUNSEL:
LAW OFFICES STEVEN DOLSON PLLC 	STEVEN R. DOLSON, ESQ.
Counsel for the Plaintiff
6320 Fly Road - Suite 201
East Syracuse, New York 13057
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 	CANDACE BROWN CASEY, 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
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 6:24-cv-01121-ML Document 24 Filed 03/12/26 Page 1 of 15

2
in connection with those motions on March 9, 2026, during a telephone conference 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
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. 18) is DENIED.
2) 	Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 22) is GRANTED.
3) 	The Commissioner’s decision denying Plaintiff Social Security benefits is
AFFIRMED.
4) 	Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED.
5) 	The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment, based upon this
determination, DISMISSING Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety and closing this case.
Dated: March 12, 2026
Binghamton, New York
____________________________________
Miroslav Lovric
United States Magistrate Judge
Northern District of New York
Case 6:24-cv-01121-ML Document 24 Filed 03/12/26 Page 2 of 15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------x
REBECCA S.,
Plaintiff,
-v- 6:24-CV-1121
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION TRANSCRIPT
BEFORE THE HONORABLE MIROSLAV LOVRIC
March 9, 2026
15 Henry Street, Binghamton, NY 13901
For the Plaintiff:
LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN R. DOLSON
6320 Fly Road - Suite 201
East Syracuse, New York 13057
BY: STEVEN R. DOLSON, ESQ.
For the Defendant:
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, Maryland 21235
BY: CANDACE BROWN CASEY, 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 6:24-cv-01121-ML Document 24 Filed 03/12/26 Page 3 of 15

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
REBECCA S. v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
HANNAH F. CAVANAUGH, RPR, CRR, CSR, NYACR, NYRCR
(315) 234-8545
2
(The Court and all parties present by telephone.
Time noted: 12:12 p.m.)
THE COURT: All right. The Court's going to begin
its decision and analysis as follows: Plaintiff has commenced
this proceeding pursuant to Title 42 U.S. 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 background, the Court notes as follows:
Plaintiff was born in 1983. She is currently approximately
42 years of age. She was approximately 38 years of age on the
date of her application for benefits.
At the time of her most recent administrative hearing
on January 10th of 2024, plaintiff lived with her 13-year-old
son. She is a high school graduate who attended regular
education classes and subsequently completed training in
cosmetology.
Plaintiff's work history includes multiple positions
as an aide at a senior living facility, but she has not held
full-time employment since the year 2009. Plaintiff testified
that she was unable to work due to the progression of
fibromyalgia symptoms that included steadily worsening neck,
shoulder, back, and knee pain and made her susceptible to
injury. Records show that treatment for these symptoms have
Case 6:24-cv-01121-ML Document 24 Filed 03/12/26 Page 4 of 15

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
REBECCA S. v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
HANNAH F. CAVANAUGH, RPR, CRR, CSR, NYACR, NYRCR
(315) 234-8545
3
included physical therapy, pain medication, epidural injections,
and surgery.
Procedurally, the Court notes as follows in this
case: Plaintiff applied for Title XVI benefits on December 10,
2021, alleging an onset date of October 6th of 2021. In support
of her application for benefits, plaintiff claims disability
based on a number of physical impairments, including
fibromyalgia, back pain, and right knee pain. Administrative
Law Judge Kenneth Theurer conducted a hearing on January 10,
2024, to address plaintiff's application for benefits. ALJ
Theurer issued an unfavorable decision on January 24th of 2024.
That decision became the final determination of the agency on
July 24th of 2024, when the Appeals Council denied plaintiff's
request for review. This civil action was commenced on
September 6th -- excuse me, September 16th of 2024, and it is
timely.
In his January 24th of 2024, decision at issue in
this case, the ALJ concluded the familiar -- excuse me, let me
do that over again -- the ALJ conducted the familiar five step
test for determining disability.
At step one, the ALJ concluded that plaintiff had not
engaged in substantial gainful activity since her application
date of December 10, 2021.
At step two, the ALJ concluded that plaintiff had the
following severe impairments: Fibromyalgia, degenerative disc
Case 6:24-cv-01121-ML Document 24 Filed 03/12/26 Page 5 of 15

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
REBECCA S. v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
HANNAH F. CAVANAUGH, RPR, CRR, CSR, NYACR, NYRCR
(315) 234-8545
4
disease of the lumbar spine, degenerative joint disease of the
right knee, plantar fasciitis, and right shoulder 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 any listed impairments. In
making this determination, the ALJ expressly considered listings
at 1.15 dealing with disorders of the skeletal spine, 1.18
dealing with abnormality of a major joint, and listing 3.03
dealing with asthma.
Next, the ALJ determined that plaintiff has the
residual functional capacity, also known as RFC, to perform less
than the full range of sedentary work. Specifically, the ALJ
found that plaintiff can occasionally lift and carry ten pounds;
sit for approximately six hours, and stand or walk for
approximately two hours in an eight-hour day with normal breaks;
can occasionally climb ramps or stairs, but never climb ladders,
ropes, or scaffolds; can occasionally balance, stoop, kneel,
crouch, and crawl; and can frequently reach with her upper
extremities.
The ALJ also found plaintiff should avoid exposure to
extreme heat, cold, wetness, and humidity, and concentrated
smoke, dust, and respiratory irritants; should avoid work at
unprotected heights or in conjunction with dangerous machinery;
should avoid rapid, repetitive rotation or flexion of the
cervical spine, but had no limitations in her ability to rotate
Case 6:24-cv-01121-ML Document 24 Filed 03/12/26 Page 6 of 15

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
REBECCA S. v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
HANNAH F. CAVANAUGH, RPR, CRR, CSR, NYACR, NYRCR
(315) 234-8545
5
the trunk of her body; and avoid more than moderate levels of
noise.
At step four, the ALJ relied on the vocational
expert, also known as a VE, testimony to determine that
plaintiff is unable to perform any past relevant work.
Again, relying on the vocational expert testimony,
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 could
perform.
Accordingly, the ALJ found that plaintiff was not
disabled from her application date of December 10, 2021, through
the date of the ALJ's decision.
Turning to plaintiff's arguments in this case, as you
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 the case
of Brault v. Social Security Administration Commissioner, that's
683 F.3d 443, that's a 2012 Second Circuit case, and therein,
the Circuit articulated that the standard is demanding, more so
than the clearly erroneous standard. The Court in Brault also
stated that once there's a finding of fact, that fact can be
Case 6:24-cv-01121-ML Document 24 Filed 03/12/26 Page 7 of 15

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
REBECCA S. v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
HANNAH F. CAVANAUGH, RPR, CRR, CSR, NYACR, NYRCR
(315) 234-8545
6
rejected only if a reasonable factfinder would have to conclude
otherwise.
Now, in this case, plaintiff raises three primary
contentions in this appeal. First, plaintiff argues that the
ALJ failed to properly evaluate the medical opinion evidence.
In particular, plaintiff argues that the ALJ ignored a
December 2022 opinion prepared by one of plaintiff's treating
physicians, that being Dr. Ecaterina Komarnitsky. Secondly, the
plaintiff argues that the ALJ's RFC determination failed to
account for plaintiff's medically determinable mental health
impairments. And then thirdly, the plaintiff argues that the
ALJ improperly substituted his lay opinion regarding plaintiff's
reaching and other use of upper extremities, as well as the
limitations imposed by plaintiff's cervical spine impairment.
The Court turns to its analysis and reasoning and
conclusions as follows. This Court finds that substantial
evidence does support the ALJ's evaluation of the evidence
addressing plaintiff's physical and mental impairments,
including the opinion and testimonial evidence, for the reasons
set forth in defendant's brief, and also the following reasons
and analysis as set forth by the Court.
The record includes two medical opinions prepared by
Dr. Komarnitsky, who has treated plaintiff since at least
December 2021. The first is a November 2022 medical source
statement co-signed by another physician, that being Dr. Rebecca
Case 6:24-cv-01121-ML Document 24 Filed 03/12/26 Page 8 of 15

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
REBECCA S. v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
HANNAH F. CAVANAUGH, RPR, CRR, CSR, NYACR, NYRCR
(315) 234-8545
7
LaValley, and the other is a December 2022 evaluation made in
connection with a state jobs training program, signed only by
Dr. Komarnitsky. Treatment notes indicate that Dr. Komarnitsky
was a resident, and Dr. LaValley was her supervisor who signed
off on many of her examination notes, see transcript at 1225.
The parties agree that the two forms generally described similar
physical limitations, that being difficulty with walking,
standing, lifting, stooping, and reaching. Although neither
opinion provides extensive narrative, the co-signed
November 2022 opinion provides greater specificity regarding
plaintiff's functional limitations. This opinion is directly
referenced in the ALJ's decision.
The ALJ's decision does not mention the December 2022
opinion, and does not mention Dr. Komarnitsky by name. The
ALJ's decision calls this Dr. LaValley's opinion and does not
mention Dr. Komarnitsky, but directly references the document
co-signed by both physicians.
Where the record contains multiple opinions from the
same medical source, the applicable regulations provide that an
ALJ is not required to articulate how he or she considered every
opinion individually, an approach that has been endorsed by the
courts, see case of Alyssa V. v. Commissioner of Social
Security, 22-CV-809. That's found at 2025 WL 2699877 at page 8,
and that is a Western District of New York September 23rd of
2025 case, and therein, the Court cited 20 C.F.R. Section
Case 6:24-cv-01121-ML Document 24 Filed 03/12/26 Page 9 of 15

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
REBECCA S. v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
HANNAH F. CAVANAUGH, RPR, CRR, CSR, NYACR, NYRCR
(315) 234-8545
8
404.1520c(b)(1).
Accordingly, this Court finds no error in the ALJ's
failure to specifically reference Dr. Komarnitsky or the
December 2022 opinion form, where he analyzed the more detailed
November of 2022 opinion completed and co-signed by the same
physician. And by my reference that he analyzed, I'm referring
to the ALJ having analyzed the more detailed November of 2022
opinion.
Looking at the medical and mental health opinion
evidence more broadly, the ALJ conducted an appropriate
evaluation of the consistency and supportability of each
opinion, both from treating sources and consultants.
"At their most basic, the amended regulations
[governing evaluation of medical opinion evidence] require that
the ALJ explain his findings regarding the supportability and
consistency for each of the medical opinions, 'pointing to
specific evidence in the record supporting those findings,'" see
case of Raymond M. v. Commissioner of Social Security. That's
19-CV-1313, and that is a Magistrate Judge Baxter case from this
district, and it's found at 2021 WL 706645 at page 8, a Northern
District New York, February 22nd of 2021 decision.
Here, in our case, the ALJ conducted an appropriate
review of the consistency and supportability factors by
comparing each referenced opinion to the medical professional's
own notes, the broader treatment record, other relevant
Case 6:24-cv-01121-ML Document 24 Filed 03/12/26 Page 10 of 15

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
REBECCA S. v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
HANNAH F. CAVANAUGH, RPR, CRR, CSR, NYACR, NYRCR
(315) 234-8545
9
opinions, and the testimonial evidence. Therefore, this Court
finds that the ALJ's evaluation of the medical opinion evidence
was supported by substantial evidence.
Moving to plaintiff's second argument, this Court
finds that the ALJ appropriately considered plaintiff's "mild"
mental health limitations as part of his RFC analysis, even
though the ALJ did not include any specific mental health
limitations in the RFC determination.
When formulating a claimant's RFC, the ALJ must
consider not only his severe impairments, but his nonsevere
impairments, as well. However, an ALJ is not required to
include specific RFC limitations corresponding to each of the
claimant's nonsevere impairments. Likewise, the courts in this
circuit have consistently found that an ALJ's identification of
a "mild" mental health limitation at step two of the sequential
evaluation does not always require a corresponding functional
limitation in the RFC. A very thorough analysis of this topic
can be found in Judge Suddaby's decision, who is a District
Court Judge in this district, and that can be found in Donna L.
v. Commissioner of Social Security. That's 23-CV-655, and that
is a District Court Judge Suddaby decision, the magistrate judge
being Judge Dancks. And that can be found at 2024 WL 3738067.
And I'm referring to page 2 of that decision. That's a Northern
District of New York, August 9, 2024, report and recommendation
by Judge Dancks that was adopted by Judge Suddaby. And therein,
Case 6:24-cv-01121-ML Document 24 Filed 03/12/26 Page 11 of 15

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
REBECCA S. v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
HANNAH F. CAVANAUGH, RPR, CRR, CSR, NYACR, NYRCR
(315) 234-8545
10
Judge Suddaby and Judge Dancks conducted a thorough analysis of
this proposition.
In this case, the ALJ found at step two that
plaintiff's diagnosed depressive disorder and anxiety disorder
were nonsevere because they caused no more than "mild
limitations" in all four functional areas: That being
understanding, remembering, or applying information; two,
interacting with others; three, concentrating, persisting, and
maintaining pace; and four, adapting or managing oneself.
This step two analysis included a detailed review of
plaintiff's mental health treatment history and the ALJ's
subsequent RFC analysis discussed relevant mental health
evidence, including a consultive psychiatric opinion. In
addition, the ALJ questioned plaintiff regarding her mental
health treatment, and plaintiff testified that she was not
currently on any psychiatric medication or receiving specialized
outpatient treatment.
Therefore, this Court finds that the ALJ satisfied
his requirements to consider plaintiff's nonsevere impairments
when formulating the RFC and marshalled substantial evidence to
support his conclusion that his -- that her, that being
plaintiff's, mental health impairments did not impose any
functional limitations.
Finally, this Court finds that the ALJ had
substantial evidence to find plaintiff could perform frequent
Case 6:24-cv-01121-ML Document 24 Filed 03/12/26 Page 12 of 15

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
REBECCA S. v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
HANNAH F. CAVANAUGH, RPR, CRR, CSR, NYACR, NYRCR
(315) 234-8545
11
reaching with the upper extremities and should avoid "rapid
repetitive rotation or flexion of the cervical spine." Thus,
this Court rejects plaintiff's argument that the ALJ improperly
relied upon his unqualified lay opinion of these topics.
Plaintiff contends that no medical opinion supports
these precise limitations, but the ALJ's RFC determination was
not required to mirror any particular medical opinion, see case
of Matta v. Astrue, 508 F.App'x 53, at page 56. That's a Second
Circuit 2013 case.
More crucially, there is record support for the ALJ's
conclusions, and the ALJ discussed much of it in his decision.
For example, in a May 2022 opinion from Dr. Rita
Figueroa that the ALJ deemed "generally persuasive," the
consultive examiner opined that plaintiff had "severe"
limitations with "turning movements of the neck" and "flexion."
This opinion, which referenced an MRI of plaintiff's cervical
spine, also drew on Dr. Figueroa's examination and interview of
plaintiff regarding her symptoms and treatment history.
One of plaintiff's providers, that being Dr. Nicholas
Qandah, opined in September of 2022 that plaintiff could still
perform activities involving frequent reaching. Although the
ALJ labeled other portions of this opinion as less persuasive,
the ALJ appears to have adopted this finding in the RFC.
The broader medical record describes plaintiff's
response to treatment for neck and chronic shoulder pain,
Case 6:24-cv-01121-ML Document 24 Filed 03/12/26 Page 13 of 15

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
REBECCA S. v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
HANNAH F. CAVANAUGH, RPR, CRR, CSR, NYACR, NYRCR
(315) 234-8545
12
including epidural injections. As part of the decision, the ALJ
considered both plaintiff's testimony regarding the pain
associated with repetitive movement and treatment -- and
treatment notes, reflecting both, one, improvement with
treatment and, two, setbacks associated with falls or
aggravation of the shoulder injury.
Thus, the ALJ considered substantial evidence that
went beyond his lay opinion regarding plaintiff's limitations of
the cervical spine and the use of the upper extremities, and
this Court finds no basis to disturb those conclusions.
As a result, plaintiff's motion for judgment on the
pleadings is denied; defendant's motion for judgment on the
pleadings is granted; plaintiff's complaint is hereby dismissed;
and the Commissioner's decision denying plaintiff benefits is
affirmed.
(Time noted: 12:32 p.m.)
Case 6:24-cv-01121-ML Document 24 Filed 03/12/26 Page 14 of 15

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
13
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 11th day of March, 2026.
s/ Hannah F. Cavanaugh______________________
HANNAH F. CAVANAUGH, RPR, CRR, CSR, NYACR, NYRCR
Official U.S. Court Reporter
Case 6:24-cv-01121-ML Document 24 Filed 03/12/26 Page 15 of 15