Henderson v. Bisignano

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JOSHUA H.,
Plaintiff,
-v- 	6:25-CV-138
COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
DAVID N. HURD
United States District Judge
ORDER ON REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
On January 30, 2025, plaintiff Joshua H.1 (“plaintiff”) filed this action
seeking review of the final decision of defendant Commissioner of Social
Security (“Commissioner”) denying his application for Disability Insurance
Benefits (“DIB”) and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) under the Social
Security Act (the “Act”). Dkt. No. 1. Because plaintiff did not consent to the
exercise of Magistrate Judge jurisdiction, Dkt. No. 3, the matter was referred
1 In accordance with a May 1, 2018 memorandum issued by the Judicial Conference’s
Committee on Court Administration and Case Management and adopted as local practice in this
District, only the first name and last initial of plaintiff will be mentioned in this opinion.
Case 6:25-cv-00138-DNH-MJK Document 21 Filed 12/22/25 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
to U.S. Magistrate Judge Mitchell J. Katz for the issuance of a Report &
Recommendation (“R&R”), Dkt. No. 4.
Thereafter, the Commissioner filed a certified copy of the Administrative
Record, Dkt. No. 6, and the parties briefed the matter in accordance with
General Order 18, which provides that an appeal from the Commissioner’s
denial of benefits should be treated as if the parties have filed cross-motions
for a judgment on the pleadings, Dkt. Nos. 10, 16, 17.
On November 13, 2025, Judge Katz advised by R&R that plaintiff’s motion
be denied, the Commissioner’s motion be granted, the Commissioner’s final
decision be affirmed, and that plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed. Dkt. No. 18.
Plaintiff has lodged objections. Dkt. No. 19. Broadly speaking, plaintiff
contends that the R&R’s analysis of the opinion evidence is “flawed” because,
although Judge Katz determined that the ALJ’s “supportability analysis was
all over the place,” he nevertheless concluded that any error was harmless
under the circumstances of the case. See id.
In response, the Commissioner explains that plaintiff’s argument is too
focused on particulars: although he “quibbles with the specific cases upon
which the R&R relied,” courts in the Northern District of New York have
consistently rejected the notion that “moderate” non-exertional limitations
necessarily precludes unskilled work. Dkt. No. 20.
Case 6:25-cv-00138-DNH-MJK Document 21 Filed 12/22/25 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
Upon de novo review, Judge Katz’s R&R is accepted and will be adopted in
all respects. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Although the R&R is quite frank
about the ALJ’s shortcomings, it also identified persuasive authority tending
to indicate that these kind of shortcomings can be held harmless under the
right circumstances. See Dkt. No. 18. After reviewing the R&R, the Court
finds that the Commissioner’s framing of the harmless error question to be
more compelling here, especially in light of the fact that the ALJ’s step-five
finding relied on unskilled jobs.
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that
1. The Report & Recommendation (Dkt. No. 18) is ACCEPTED;
2. Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED;
3. The Commissioner’s motion is GRANTED;
4. The Commissioner’s final decision is AFFIRMED; and
5. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the pending motion, enter
a judgment accordingly, and close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
___________________________
United States District Judge
Dated: December 22, 2025
Utica, New York.
Case 6:25-cv-00138-DNH-MJK Document 21 Filed 12/22/25 Page 3 of 3