Delosh v. Commissioner of Social Security

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
____________________________________
CHAD D.,
Plaintiff,
8:24-CV-1343
v. 	(DJS)
FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of
Social Security,
Defendant.
____________________________________
APPEARANCES: 	OF COUNSEL:
OLINSKY LAW GROUP 	HOWARD D. OLINSKY, ESQ.
Attorney for Plaintiff
250 South Clinton Street, Suite 210
Syracuse, New York 13202
U.S. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMIN. 	FERGUS J. KAISER, ESQ.
OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL
Attorney for Defendant
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, Maryland 21235
DANIEL J. STEWART
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 8:24-cv-01343-DJS Document 18 Filed 03/03/26 Page 1 of 10

2
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER1
Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking review of a
decision by the Commissioner of Social Security that Plaintiff was not disabled.
Currently before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, Dkt.
Nos. 11 & 16, and Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. 	Dkt. No. 13.
For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is
denied and Defendant’s Motion is granted. 	The Commissioner’s determination is
affirmed.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Factual Background
Plaintiff applied for disability insurance and supplemental security income
benefits and his applications were denied on December 3, 2021. Dkt. No. 8, Admin. Tr.
(“Tr.”) at pp. 140-159. Reconsideration was denied on May 11, 2022. Tr. at pp. 163-
188. Plaintiff thereafter timely requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge
(“ALJ”). Tr. at pp. 196-197. Two administrative hearings were held before ALJ Jeremy
Eldred, one on October 30, 2023, and the second on April 22, 2024. 	Tr. at pp. 35-66.
A vocational expert testified at each hearing. Id. On May 14, 2024, ALJ Eldred issued
1 Upon Plaintiff’s consent, the United States’ general consent, and in accordance with this District’s General
Order 18, this matter has been referred to the undersigned to exercise full jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(c) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73. See Dkt. No. 7 & General Order 18.
Case 8:24-cv-01343-DJS Document 18 Filed 03/03/26 Page 2 of 10

3
a written decision finding Plaintiff was not disabled under the Social Security Act. Tr.
at pp. 17-27. In September 2024, the Appeals Council denied review. Tr. at pp. 1-6.
B. The ALJ’s Decision
The ALJ’s decision first found that Plaintiff met the insured status requirements
through June 30, 2025. Tr. at p. 19. Next, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had not engaged
in substantial gainful activity since March 20, 2020, his alleged onset date. Id. The ALJ
found that Plaintiff’s diabetes, diabetic retinopathy with recurrent vitreous hemorrhage
of the left eye, neuropathy, and degenerative changes of the right foot were severe
impairments. Tr. at p. 20. Third, the ALJ found that Plaintiff did not have an impairment
or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled one of the listed
impairments in 20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpart P, App. 1. 	Tr. at p. 21. 	Fourth, the ALJ
concluded that Plaintiff had the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform a full
range of light work except:
he can never climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; can climb ramps or stairs
frequently; must avoid exposure to hazardous working conditions, such as
work 	done 	at 	unprotected 	heights 	and 	work 	done 	in 	proximity 	to
dangerous moving machinery; is limited to no more than occasional use
of near visual acuity; is limited to no more than occasional use of visual
accommodation, and is limited to no more than occasional use of depth
perception.
Id. Next, the ALJ found that Plaintiff was unable to perform his past relevant work. Tr.
at p. 26. The ALJ then found that based on Plaintiff’s age, education, work experience,
Case 8:24-cv-01343-DJS Document 18 Filed 03/03/26 Page 3 of 10

4
and RFC he could perform several jobs existing in significant numbers in the national
economy. 	Id. 	Finally, the ALJ found that Plaintiff was not disabled as defined in the
Social Security Act. Tr. at p. 27.
II. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
A. Standard of Review
A court reviewing a denial of disability benefits may not determine de novo
whether an individual is disabled. 	42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Wagner v. Sec’y of Health &
Human Servs., 906 F.2d 856, 860 (2d Cir. 1990). 	Rather, the Commissioner’s
determination will be reversed only if the correct legal standards were not applied, or it
was not supported by substantial evidence. 	Johnson v. Bowen, 817 F.2d 983, 986 (2d
Cir. 1987). 	“Substantial evidence” is evidence that amounts to “more than a mere
scintilla,” and has been defined as “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401
(1971).
“To determine on appeal whether the ALJ’s findings are supported by substantial
evidence, a reviewing court considers the whole record, examining evidence from both
sides, because an analysis of the substantiality of the evidence must also include that
which detracts from its weight.” Williams v. Bowen, 859 F.2d 255, 258 (2d Cir. 1988).
If supported by substantial evidence, the Commissioner’s finding must be sustained
Case 8:24-cv-01343-DJS Document 18 Filed 03/03/26 Page 4 of 10

5
“even where substantial evidence may support the plaintiff’s position and despite that
the court’s independent analysis of the evidence may differ from the [Commissioner’s].”
Rosado v. Sullivan, 805 F. Supp. 147, 153 (S.D.N.Y. 1992).
B. Standard to Determine Disability
The Commissioner has established a five-step evaluation process to determine
whether an individual is disabled as defined by the Social Security Act. 20 C.F.R. §§
404.1520, 416.920. 	The Supreme Court has recognized the validity of this sequential
evaluation process. 	Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 141-42 (1987). 	The five-step
process asks:
(1) whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful
activity; (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment or combination
of impairments; (3) whether the impairment meets or equals the severity
of the specified impairments in the Listing of Impairments; (4) based on
a “residual functional capacity” assessment, whether the claimant can
perform any of his or her past relevant work despite the impairment; and
(5) whether there are significant numbers of jobs in the national economy
that the claimant can perform given the claimant’s residual functional
capacity, age, education, and work experience.
McIntyre v. Colvin, 758 F.3d 146, 150 (2d Cir. 2014). 	“If at any step a finding of
disability or non-disability can be made, the SSA will not review the claim further.”
Barnhart v. Thompson, 540 U.S. 20, 24 (2003).
Case 8:24-cv-01343-DJS Document 18 Filed 03/03/26 Page 5 of 10

6
III. DISCUSSION
In this case, Plaintiff presents a single issue for review. He challenges the ALJ’s
evaluation of his visual impairments, specifically questioning whether substantial
evidence supported the limitations imposed in the RFC. Dkt. No. 11, Pl.’s Mem. of Law
at pp. 8-13. The Commissioner responds that there were no errors in the consideration
of Plaintiff’s claim and that substantial evidence supports the determination. Dkt. No.
13, Def.’s Mem. of Law at pp. 5-8.
The record in this case establishes unequivocally that Plaintiff had vision issues
in his left eye. 	The ALJ’s RFC finding sought to address those issues by limiting
Plaintiff to no more than occasional use of visual acuity, visual accommodation and
depth perception. Tr. at p. 21. Plaintiff was also limited in his exposure to hazardous
conditions and dangerous machinery. Id. While Plaintiff suggests that “[t]he ALJ erred
by fashioning an RFC without the support of any medical opinion,” Tr. at p. 10, the
record clearly demonstrates to the contrary.
Multiple 	medical 	opinions 	considered 	by 	the 	ALJ 	specifically 	addressed
Plaintiff’s vision issues. 	Dr. Angelotti, a state agency consultant, provided a medical
opinion indicating no visual limitations. Tr. at p. 79. Dr. Gandhi, another state agency
physician, also opined no visual limitations. Tr. at p. 112. The ALJ found these opinions
to “have some persuasive value.” 	Tr. at p. 25. 	Dr. Elke Lorensen, a consultative
Case 8:24-cv-01343-DJS Document 18 Filed 03/03/26 Page 6 of 10

7
examiner, discussed Plaintiff’s vision test results and did not include any visual
limitations in assessing his functional capacity. Tr. at pp. 486 & 488. The ALJ found
Dr. Lorensen’s opinion supported by and consistent with the record, though “somewhat
optimistic” as to Plaintiff’s abilities. 	Tr. at p. 25. 	Finally, Dr. Ashley Grimshaw, a
treating provider, noted Plaintiff’s vision issues and stated he should “avoid hazards.”
Tr. at p. 1986. The ALJ concluded that some portions of Dr. Grimshaw’s opinion were
unpersuasive. Tr. at p. 25.
Plaintiff’s hearing testimony provided additional evidence regarding his visual
limitations. 	He indicated he had trouble reading normal sized print, Tr. at p. 39, and
seeing information on his phone. 	Tr. at p. 40. 	Plaintiff also testified to tripping over
things, though it is unclear whether he attributed that solely to numbness or in part to
his vision issues. Tr. at p. 53. He indicated difficulty identifying what someone might
be doing with their hand in front of Plaintiff’s face. Tr. at p. 56.
“It is the ALJ, and not a medical source, who is responsible for assessing a
claimant’s RFC.” Jose F. v. O’Malley, 2024 WL 4210900, at *7 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 17,
2024) (citing Social Security regulations). 	The Second Circuit has consistently
recognized that “the ALJ’s RFC conclusion need not perfectly match any single medical
opinion in the record, so long as it is supported by substantial evidence.” 	Schillo v.
Kijakazi, 31 F.4th 64, 78 (2d Cir. 2022). The ALJ is also free to consider a plaintiff’s
Case 8:24-cv-01343-DJS Document 18 Filed 03/03/26 Page 7 of 10

8
testimony in crafting the RFC. McMillian v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 2022 WL 457400, at
*5 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 15, 2022); Haggins v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 2020 WL 4390698, at *5
(W.D.N.Y. July 31, 2020). While Plaintiff correctly cites to the rule that “ALJs are not
medical professionals; therefore, ALJs are not qualified to assess a claimant’s RFC on
the basis of bare medical findings,” Melanie M. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 2020 WL
4335495, at *4 (N.D.N.Y. July 28, 2020) (internal quotations omitted), there is no reason
to conclude on this record that the ALJ did so.
Two of the medical opinions expressly opined no visual limitations, Tr. at pp. 79
& 112, while Dr. Grimshaw recommended only that Plaintiff “avoid hazards.” Tr. at p.
1986. The RFC adopted by the ALJ specifically addresses Dr. Grimshaw’s concerns by
directing that Plaintiff “avoid exposure to hazardous working conditions.” Tr. at p. 21.
Plaintiff objects to the further restrictions imposed in the RFC, limiting Plaintiff to no
more than occasional near visual acuity, use of visual accommodation and depth
perception. 	Tr. at p. 21; Pl.’s Mem. of Law at pp. 10-11. 	This objection lacks merit.
Given Plaintiff’s documented vision issues and Plaintiff’s own testimony regarding his
limited visual acuity, the ALJ reasonably chose to impose greater limits than opined in
the medical opinions. Substantial evidence certainly supports that finding.
The ALJ has an obligation to “weigh all of the evidence available to make an
RFC finding that was consistent with the record as a whole.” 	Matta v. Astrue, 508 F.
Case 8:24-cv-01343-DJS Document 18 Filed 03/03/26 Page 8 of 10

9
App’x 53, 56 (2d Cir. 2013). Contrary to Plaintiff’s suggestion, the Court does not view
the ALJ’s analysis here to reflect him “playing doctor” in choosing limitations, but
having considered all the evidence, medical and otherwise, in reaching a reasoned
conclusion about Plaintiff’s functional abilities. See Kelly v. Saul, 2019 WL 6842970,
at *3 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2019).
Even assuming this was error, it was clearly harmless. Since most of the medical
opinions in the record identified no visual limitation, an “RFC including additional
restrictions that limited Plaintiff to working fewer jobs than supported by a medical
opinion, such determination, if incorrect, is merely harmless error.” Jose F. v. O’Malley,
2024 WL 4210900, at *8 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 17, 2024). At best, what Plaintiff objects to
is an RFC that is more restrictive than what the medical records might otherwise have
supported and the Court fails to see how that error could have prejudiced Plaintiff. Ryan
W. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 2022 WL 813934, at *4 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2022); Michael
G. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 2020 WL 7706603, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 29, 2020).
IV. CONCLUSION
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED;
and it is further
Case 8:24-cv-01343-DJS Document 18 Filed 03/03/26 Page 9 of 10

10
ORDERED, 	that 	Defendant’s 	Motion 	for 	Judgment 	on 	the 	Pleadings 	is
GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED, that Defendant’s Motion denying Plaintiff disability benefits is
AFFIRMED and the Complaint is DISMISSED; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court shall serve copies of this Memorandum-
Decision and Order on the parties.
Dated: March 3, 2026
Albany, New York
Case 8:24-cv-01343-DJS Document 18 Filed 03/03/26 Page 10 of 10