Roberts v. Commissioner of Social Security

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
________________________________________
BRIAN R.,
Plaintiff,
v. 	5:25-CV-00208
(ML)
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
________________________________________
APPEARANCES: 	OF COUNSEL:
OLINSKY LAW GROUP 	EDWARD A. WICKLUND, ESQ.
Counsel for the Plaintiff
250 South Clinton Street - Suite 210
Syracuse, New York 13202
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 	KRISTINA D. COHN, 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 5:25-cv-00208-ML Document 19 Filed 03/26/26 Page 1 of 15

2
in connection with those motions on March 20, 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. 13) is DENIED.
2) 	Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 15) 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 26, 2026
Binghamton, New York
____________________________________
Miroslav Lovric
United States Magistrate Judge
Northern District of New York
Case 5:25-cv-00208-ML Document 19 Filed 03/26/26 Page 2 of 15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
***************************************************
BRIAN SCOTT ROBERTS,
Plaintiff,
-v- 25-cv-208
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
***************************************************
EXCERPT OF TEAMS PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE HONORABLE MIROSLAV LOVRIC
March 20, 2026
PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF:
OLINSKY LAW GROUP
BY: Edward A. Wicklund, Esq.
250 South Clinton Street
Syracuse, New York 13202
FOR THE DEFENDANT:
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
BY: Kristina D. Cohn, Esq.
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, Maryland 21235
Case 5:25-cv-00208-ML Document 19 Filed 03/26/26 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
ROBERTS v COMM. OF SOCIAL SECURITY - 25-cv-208
Lisa L. Tennyson, CSR, RMR, FCRR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - NDNY
2
THE COURT: All right. Well, the Court is
going to commence its reasoning, analysis and decision
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 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 1970. Plaintiff is
currently approximately 55 years of age. Plaintiff was
approximately 51 years of age on the date of his
application for benefits. At the time of his
administrative hearing, Plaintiff lived alone.
The Court notes that while in school,
Plaintiff received special education assistance until he
left prior to completion of the 10th grade. Plaintiff's
work history includes positions as a janitor at a hotel,
packer at a manufacturing facility and, most recently,
dishwasher at a restaurant. Plaintiff left this
position following a dispute with a coworker. Plaintiff
has not worked since 2020.
Plaintiff's disability claim is premised
entirely on his mental health impairments. Plaintiff
Case 5:25-cv-00208-ML Document 19 Filed 03/26/26 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
ROBERTS v COMM. OF SOCIAL SECURITY - 25-cv-208
Lisa L. Tennyson, CSR, RMR, FCRR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - NDNY
3
described having nightmares, flashbacks, and distressing
memories stemming from his childhood trauma, as well as
difficulty trusting and interacting others due to his
post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms.
Plaintiff described himself as depressed,
unmotivated and lethargic, and reported difficulties
with attention and concentration and a tendency to
isolate himself.
Procedurally, the Court notes as follows:
Plaintiff applied for Title XVI benefits on October 26th
of 2021, alleging an onset date of November 11th, 2017.
In support of his application for benefits, Plaintiff
claims disability based on a number of mental health and
health impairments, including PTSD and depression.
Plaintiff has not alleged any disabling physical
impairments.
Administrative Law Judge John Ramos conducted
a hearing on May 14th of 2024 to address Plaintiff's
application for benefits. ALJ Ramos issued an
unfavorable decision on May 22nd of 2024. That decision
became the final determination of the agency on
January 27th of 2025 when the Appeals Council denied
Plaintiff's request for review.
This civil action was commenced on
January 13th of 2025, and it is timely.
Case 5:25-cv-00208-ML Document 19 Filed 03/26/26 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
ROBERTS v COMM. OF SOCIAL SECURITY - 25-cv-208
Lisa L. Tennyson, CSR, RMR, FCRR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - NDNY
4
In his May 22nd of 2024 decision at issue in
this case, the ALJ conducted the familiar five-step test
for determining disability.
At Step 1, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff
had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since
his application date of October 26th of 2021.
At Step 2, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff
had the following severe impairments, that being
depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, and PTSD.
At Step 3, 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 12.04, dealing with depressive bipolar
and related disorders. Listing 12.06, dealing with
anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorders. Listing
12.15, dealing with trauma and stressor-related
disorders.
Next, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff has
the residual functional capacity, also known as RFC, to
perform work and all exertional levels but with certain
nonexertional limitations.
Specifically, the ALJ found that Plaintiff can
Case 5:25-cv-00208-ML Document 19 Filed 03/26/26 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
ROBERTS v COMM. OF SOCIAL SECURITY - 25-cv-208
Lisa L. Tennyson, CSR, RMR, FCRR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - NDNY
5
understand and follow simple instructions and directions
and regularly attend to a routine and maintain a
schedule.
The ALJ also found Plaintiff can relate to and
interact with coworkers and supervisors frequently
throughout the day and engage in frequent, brief
interaction with the public. And the ALJ also
determined -- give me one second to make sure my
computer doesn't decide right now to do a update of all
my software.
Continuing with my decision, the ALJ found
that Plaintiff can make decisions directly related to
the performance of simple work and handle usual
workplace changes and interactions associated with
simple work.
In addition, the ALJ also found that Plaintiff
should work in a position where he is not responsible
for the work of others or require to supervise others.
And the ALJ also noted that Plaintiff should work in a
position with occasional changes in daily work process
or routine.
At Step 4, the ALJ found Plaintiff had no past
relevant work. At Step 5, the ALJ relied on the
vocational expert testimony to find that considering
Plaintiff's age, education, work experience and RFC that
Case 5:25-cv-00208-ML Document 19 Filed 03/26/26 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
ROBERTS v COMM. OF SOCIAL SECURITY - 25-cv-208
Lisa L. Tennyson, CSR, RMR, FCRR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - NDNY
6
there are jobs existing in significant numbers in the
national economy that Plaintiff can perform.
Accordingly, the ALJ found that Plaintiff was
not disabled from the application date of October 26th,
2021, through the date of the ALJ's decision.
Turning now to Plaintiff's arguments in this
matter, first, the Court notes that this Court's
functional role in this case is limited and extremely
deferential. A Court must determine whether the 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 at
683 F.3d 443, a 2012 Second Circuit case, and the
Circuit therein indicated that the standard is demanding
more so than the clearly erroneous standard.
Second Circuit also 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.
In this appeal, Plaintiff raises two primary
contentions in the proceedings. First, Plaintiff argues
Case 5:25-cv-00208-ML Document 19 Filed 03/26/26 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
ROBERTS v COMM. OF SOCIAL SECURITY - 25-cv-208
Lisa L. Tennyson, CSR, RMR, FCRR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - NDNY
7
that the ALJ failed to properly evaluate the medical
opinion evidence. In particular, Plaintiff contends
that the ALJ failed to explain why he did not fully
incorporate all the limitations identified in the
persuasive opinion from Dr. David Schaich. That being
Dr. David Schaich's July 2023 consultive opinion.
Second, the Plaintiff argues and contends that
the ALJ failed to properly evaluate Plaintiff's
subjective testimony regarding his difficulty with
others.
The Court will now turn to its reasoning,
analysis, and decision.
This Court finds that substantial evidence
supports the ALJ's evaluation of the evidence addressing
Plaintiff's mental health impairments, including the
opinion and testimonial evidence for the reasons set
forth in Defendant's brief, and the Court adds the
following analysis:
Dr. Schaich performed a consultative
psychiatric evaluation of Plaintiff on July 14th of
2023. While Dr. Schaich found no evidence of
limitations in many functional areas, he assessed
moderate limitations caused by Plaintiff's anxiety and
depression in, one, Plaintiff's ability to interact
adequately with supervisors, coworkers, and the public
Case 5:25-cv-00208-ML Document 19 Filed 03/26/26 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
ROBERTS v COMM. OF SOCIAL SECURITY - 25-cv-208
Lisa L. Tennyson, CSR, RMR, FCRR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - NDNY
8
and, two, Plaintiff's ability to regulate emotions,
control behavior, and maintain well-being.
The ALJ deemed Dr. Schaich's opinion to be
persuasive because it was supported by the consultative
psychiatric examination results, and it was consistent
with the broader medical record documenting Plaintiff's
improvement with treatment.
Plaintiff contends that the RFC allowance of
frequent social interaction with supervisors and
coworkers and frequent, brief social interaction with
the general public fails to properly account for
Dr. Schaich's opinion that Plaintiff had moderate
limitations and social interaction.
Plaintiff further contends and argues that the
ALJ did not address the opined moderate limitations in
emotional regulation at all.
This Court disagrees with Plaintiff's
contentions. To begin with, the RFC determination need
not mirror a particular medical opinion, even one deemed
persuasive. Rather, an ALJ should base its RFC
determination on the longitudinal record. The ALJ did
so here, citing treatment notes from the relevant
period, multiple medical opinions, and Plaintiff's own
assessments of his functioning and daily activities as
part of his RFC analysis.
Case 5:25-cv-00208-ML Document 19 Filed 03/26/26 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
ROBERTS v COMM. OF SOCIAL SECURITY - 25-cv-208
Lisa L. Tennyson, CSR, RMR, FCRR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - NDNY
9
Second, Courts within the Northern District
have regularly found an RFC that allows for frequent
social interaction to be consistent with moderate
limitations like those assessed by Dr. Schaich; see case
of Melanie L. versus Commissioner of Social Security.
That's found at 5:22-cv-87, and that is a Magistrate
Judge Andrew T. Baxter case. The cite is 2022 Westlaw
17992220 at page 8. That's a Northern District of
New York, December 29, 2022, case, and therein,
Magistrate Judge Baxter also collected a variety of
cases for this proposition.
Likewise, courts have regularly found moderate
limitations in the ability to regulate emotions, control
behavior, and maintain well-being adequately addressed
by an RFC of simple tasks with only occasional changes
in daily routine and no supervisory responsibilities;
see case of Jeff S. versus Commissioner of Social
Security. That's found at 8:23-cv-1576, and that is a
Senior District Court Judge Frederick J. Scullin
decision, also with Magistrate Judge Hummel. That's
found at 2024 Westlaw 5345046 at page 6, a Northern
District of New York decision of December 11th, 2024, by
Judge Scullin, and a report-recommendation adopted, and
that is found at 2025 Westlaw 254898 and that's a
Judge Hummel report, Northern District of New York,
Case 5:25-cv-00208-ML Document 19 Filed 03/26/26 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
ROBERTS v COMM. OF SOCIAL SECURITY - 25-cv-208
Lisa L. Tennyson, CSR, RMR, FCRR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - NDNY
10
January 21st of 2025.
The ALJ's RFC includes such limitations and,
thus, adequately addresses the moderate limitations
addressed by Dr. Schaich.
Finally, Plaintiff challenges the ALJ's
evaluation of this testimony, again raising concerns
about the ALJ's evaluation of Plaintiff's limitations in
social interaction and emotional regulation.
In particular, Plaintiff contends that the ALJ
ignored his description of difficulties with
concentration and conflict avoidance when working around
others. Plaintiff also contends that the ALJ ignored
his testimony that his medication makes him feel tired.
Recognizing that a claimant's subjective
description of his symptoms cannot establish disability
by itself and that a reviewing court must give great
deference to the ALJ's assessment of hearing testimony,
this Court finds that the ALJ marshaled substantial
evidence to support his conclusions in these areas and
reasonably credited or discounted Plaintiff's subjective
complaints against the broader medical record.
The ALJ's decision summarizes Plaintiff's
testimony regarding interpersonal conflicts and
concentration problems but balances those against
treatment notes reflecting Plaintiff's self-assessments
Case 5:25-cv-00208-ML Document 19 Filed 03/26/26 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
ROBERTS v COMM. OF SOCIAL SECURITY - 25-cv-208
Lisa L. Tennyson, CSR, RMR, FCRR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - NDNY
11
and those of his medical providers indicating that his
overall functioning improved over the course of his
mental health treatment, including better focus and an
increased ability to use coping skills when conflicts
arise.
The ALJ also cited daily activities, including
shopping, using public transportation, coaching
basketball, and socializing with friends. While these
activities are not dispositive on their own, they are a
relevant consideration when evaluating Plaintiff's
claimed symptoms and limitations.
An ALJ's decision is not required to discuss
every shred of medical evidence. Although he did not
specifically mention Plaintiff's testimony that a
particular medication made him feel tired, the ALJ's
decision does not cite Plaintiff's statements reflected
in multiple treatment. Let me back up. Sorry about
that. I just misread that.
Starting over with that sentence. Although he
did not specifically mention Plaintiff's testimony that
a particular medication made him feel tired, the ALJ's
decision does cite Plaintiff's statements reflected in
multiple treatment notes that he was not experiencing
any major negative side effects and that his sleep had
improved over the course of treatment.
Case 5:25-cv-00208-ML Document 19 Filed 03/26/26 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
ROBERTS v COMM. OF SOCIAL SECURITY - 25-cv-208
Lisa L. Tennyson, CSR, RMR, FCRR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - NDNY
12
In large measure, Plaintiff's challenges to
the ALJ's evaluation of the medical opinion and
testimonial evidence and the resulting RFC determination
are 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
of the pleadings is denied. Defendant's motion for
judgment of the pleadings is granted. Plaintiff's
complaint is dismissed and the Commissioner's decision
denying Plaintiff's benefits is hereby affirmed.
As the Court indicated, I will ask that the
court reporter transcribe my decision as set forth on
the record. I will then attached that to a summary
order and file that in the docket and that way, the
parties will have my decision in writing.
All right, everyone. That will conclude our
proceedings for today. I hope you have a good rest of
the day and have a nice upcoming weekend, and court
Case 5:25-cv-00208-ML Document 19 Filed 03/26/26 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
ROBERTS v COMM. OF SOCIAL SECURITY - 25-cv-208
Lisa L. Tennyson, CSR, RMR, FCRR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - NDNY
13
stands adjourned. Thank you, all.
(Proceeding concluded.)
* * * * * * * * * * *
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
I, Lisa L. Tennyson, RMR, CSR, FCRR, Official 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 excerpt
of the 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.
/s/ Lisa L. Tennyson
Lisa L. Tennyson, RMR, RPR, FCRR
Case 5:25-cv-00208-ML Document 19 Filed 03/26/26 Page 15 of 15