Lardeo v. Commissioner of Social Security

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
________________________________________
TINA L.,
Plaintiff,
v. 	5:24-CV-01530
(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 	GEOFFREY M. PETERS, 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 5:24-cv-01530-ML Document 21 Filed 03/12/26 Page 1 of 12

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. 12) is DENIED.
2) 	Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 13) 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 5:24-cv-01530-ML Document 21 Filed 03/12/26 Page 2 of 12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------x
TINA L.,
Plaintiff,
-v- 24-CV-1530
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:
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: GEOFFREY M. PETERS, 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 5:24-cv-01530-ML Document 21 Filed 03/12/26 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
TINA L. v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
HANNAH F. CAVANAUGH, RPR, CRR, CSR, NYACR, NYRCR
(315) 234-8545
2
(The Court and all counsel present by telephone.
Time noted: 2:14 p.m.)
THE COURT: All right. Well, the Court's going to
begin its decision and analysis as follows: Plaintiff has
commenced this proceeding pursuant to Title 42 U.S. Code 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 1978. She is approximately 47 years of
age. She was approximately 44 years of age on the date of her
application for benefits.
Plaintiff is a high school graduate, attended
approximately one year of college, and then obtained a
certification as a surgical technologist. From approximately
July of 2005 to approximately September of 2021, plaintiff
worked in a hospital operating room, with duties including
preparing the room and surgical instruments, handing instruments
to the surgeon, and maintaining a sterile environment. She
testified that she left this position due to medical
complications after contracting COVID-19.
Plaintiff was hospitalized for a week in May of 2021
after developing COVID-related pneumonia. Since that time,
plaintiff has reported lingering symptoms, including vertigo,
Case 5:24-cv-01530-ML Document 21 Filed 03/12/26 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
TINA L. v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
HANNAH F. CAVANAUGH, RPR, CRR, CSR, NYACR, NYRCR
(315) 234-8545
3
muscle and joint pain, fatigue, and shortness of breath. She
described constant dizziness and imbalance that made her feel
like the room is constantly spinning and prevents her from
driving or looking at a computer screen.
Procedurally, the Court notes the following:
Plaintiff applied for Title II benefits on October 19th of 2022,
and alleging an onset date of May 14th of 2021. In support of
her application for benefits, plaintiff claims disability based
on a number of physical and mental health impairments, including
vertigo, gout, and anxiety-panic disorder. Administrative Law
Judge Mary Jane Pelton conducted a hearing on March 15th of 2024
to address plaintiff's application for benefits. ALJ Pelton
issued an unfavorable decision on April 10th of 2024. That
decision became the final determination of the agency on
November 18th of 2024, when the Appeals Council denied
plaintiff's request for review. This civil action was commenced
on December 17, 2024, and it is timely.
In her April 10, 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 2027, 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 since the alleged onset
date of May 14th of 2021.
Case 5:24-cv-01530-ML Document 21 Filed 03/12/26 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
TINA L. v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
HANNAH F. CAVANAUGH, RPR, CRR, CSR, NYACR, NYRCR
(315) 234-8545
4
At step two, the ALJ concluded that plaintiff had the
following severe impairments: First, degenerative joint disease
and ostearthritis; second, long-haul Coronavirus disease, also
referred to as COVID-19; vertigo; depressive disorder; anxiety
disorder; and obesity.
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 the
following listings: Listing 1.18 dealing with abnormality of a
major joint; listing 2.02 dealing with chronic respiratory
disorders; listing 3.03 dealing with asthma; listing 12.04
dealing with depressive, bipolar, and related disorders; and
listing 12.06 dealing with anxiety and obsessive compulsive
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 light work. Specifically,
the ALJ found that plaintiff can stand and/or walk four hours;
never climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; occasionally balance,
stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl, but should avoid exposure to
workplace hazards, such as unprotected heights and dangerous
moving machinery. The ALJ further found plaintiff can
understand, remember, and carry out simple instructions and use
of judgment to make simple work-related decisions; that
Case 5:24-cv-01530-ML Document 21 Filed 03/12/26 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
TINA L. v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
HANNAH F. CAVANAUGH, RPR, CRR, CSR, NYACR, NYRCR
(315) 234-8545
5
plaintiff can handle occasional changes in the routine work
setting, but is unable to perform work requiring a specific
production rate or hourly quota; and lastly, that plaintiff can
manage frequent interactions with supervisors and coworkers, and
occasional interaction with the public.
At step four, the ALJ relied on the vocational expert
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 can
perform.
Accordingly, the ALJ found that plaintiff was not
disabled from the alleged onset date of May 14, 2021, through
the date of the ALJ's decisions -- excuse me, decision.
I'm turning now to the arguments by plaintiff in this
matter. I start with articulating that, as counsel 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 has been defined as
such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind would find
sufficient to support a conclusion. As the Second Circuit has
noted in the case of Brault v. Social Security Administration
Case 5:24-cv-01530-ML Document 21 Filed 03/12/26 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
TINA L. v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
HANNAH F. CAVANAUGH, RPR, CRR, CSR, NYACR, NYRCR
(315) 234-8545
6
Commissioner, that's found at 683 F.3d 443, a 2012 Second
Circuit case, and therein, the Circuit articulated that this
standard is demanding, more so than the clearly erroneous
standard. The Court noted in Brault that once there's a finding
of that fact, that fact can be rejected only if a reasonable
factfinder would have to conclude otherwise.
Plaintiff contends that the ALJ failed to properly
evaluate the medical opinion evidence. In particular, plaintiff
contends that the ALJ did not adequately consider the
supportability and consistency of a series of opinions prepared
by plaintiff's primary care physician, Dr. Agata Wojtasiewicz.
Turning now to the Court's analysis and reasoning and
conclusion, the Court begins as follows: This Court finds that
substantial evidence supports 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 for the following
reasons that the Court articulates here.
Dr. Wojtasiewicz has been one of plaintiff's primary
care physicians since at least May of 2021. The record includes
a number of opinions from Dr. Wojtasiewicz ranging from letters
to plaintiff's employer generally advising that she was unable
to return to work to more specific progress reports prepared in
November 2021, December 2021, and January 2023. These opinions
are internally consistent, recommending that plaintiff can only
Case 5:24-cv-01530-ML Document 21 Filed 03/12/26 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
TINA L. v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
HANNAH F. CAVANAUGH, RPR, CRR, CSR, NYACR, NYRCR
(315) 234-8545
7
sit for short periods of time and must avoid bending, kneeling,
climbing, and driving due to her dizziness and lightheadedness.
Dr. Wojtasiewicz also opined that plaintiff's vertigo symptoms
were exacerbated by sudden changes in position. These opinions
followed a questionnaire format that provides minimal narrative
explanation, but the record includes the physician's
contemporaneous treatment notes.
The ALJ deemed Dr. Wojtasiewicz's opinions to be
unpersuasive, relying instead on the less restrictive opinions
of the examining and non-examining consultant physicians.
Plaintiff contends and argues that this conclusion is based on a
flawed evaluation of the supportability and consistency of the
primary care provider's opinions. This Court disagrees with
plaintiff's assertions.
The ALJ addressed the supportability factor by noting
the limited narrative provided in the opinions themselves and
citing Dr. Wojtasiewicz's treatment notes during the
corresponding period that documented slow improvement in her
vertigo and shortness of breath as plaintiff progressed in
physical and respiratory therapy, but often included normal
cardiovascular, musculoskeletal, and neurological test results
that suggested -- that suggested greater function than depicted
in Dr. Wojtasiewicz's opinion.
Addressing consistency, the ALJ cited the broader
treatment record that included physical therapy progress notes
Case 5:24-cv-01530-ML Document 21 Filed 03/12/26 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
TINA L. v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
HANNAH F. CAVANAUGH, RPR, CRR, CSR, NYACR, NYRCR
(315) 234-8545
8
and physician-reviewed imaging reports. Immediately following
her discussion of Dr. Wojtasiewicz's restrictive opinion, the
ALJ summarized treatment notes from other providers that the ALJ
found represented an ability to perform light work in 2021,
2022, and 2023, including a number of evaluations of plaintiff's
gait, balance, motor strength, and range of motion. Elsewhere
in the decision, the ALJ explained how the longitudinal record
was more consistent with the medical opinions of the
non-examining and examining consulting physicians, who had all
reached less restrictive conclusions. The ALJ's overall
analysis portrays Dr. Wojtasiewicz's opinion as a less
persuasive outlier from the rest.
Looking at the opinion evidence more broadly, this
Court finds that the ALJ conducted an appropriate evaluation of
the consistency and supportability of each opinion, whether a
treating source or a consultant.
"At their most basic, the amended regulations
[governing evaluation of medical opinion evidence] require that
the ALJ explain her 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 found at 19-CV-1313 and that is a Magistrate Judge Baxter
case from this district. And the cite is 2021 WL 706645 at page
8, a Northern District of New York, February 22, 2021, decision.
Case 5:24-cv-01530-ML Document 21 Filed 03/12/26 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
TINA L. v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
HANNAH F. CAVANAUGH, RPR, CRR, CSR, NYACR, NYRCR
(315) 234-8545
9
Here in this 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
opinions, and the testimonial evidence. The ALJ then referred
to specific evidence that supported her conclusions. Therefore,
this Court finds that the ALJ's evaluation of the medical
opinion evidence was, in fact, supported by substantial
evidence.
In large measure -- in large measure, plaintiff's
challenges to the ALJ's evaluation of the medical opinion and
testimonial evidence and the resulting RFC determination are
largely premised on a disagreement over how the ALJ resolved
arguably conflicting evidence about plaintiff's functional
limitations. It is not sufficient that reasonable parties could
interpret the evidence differently, and it is not the function
of this reviewing court to reweigh the evidence. Therefore,
this Court finds no justification for remand in this case.
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 dismissed; and
the Commissioner's decision denying plaintiff benefits is hereby
affirmed.
(Time noted: 2:29 p.m.)
Case 5:24-cv-01530-ML Document 21 Filed 03/12/26 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 11th day of March, 2026.
s/ Hannah F. Cavanaugh______________________
HANNAH F. CAVANAUGH, RPR, CRR, CSR, NYACR, NYRCR
Official U.S. Court Reporter
Case 5:24-cv-01530-ML Document 21 Filed 03/12/26 Page 12 of 12