UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ____________________________________________ ALEXANDRIA S., Plaintiff, vs. 6:22-CV-00020 (MAD/DJS) COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. ____________________________________________ APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: OFFICE OF PETER W. ANTONOWICZ PETER W. ANTONOWICZ, ESQ. 148 West Dominick Street Rome, New York 13440 Attorneys for Plaintiff SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION AMANDA J. LOCKSHIN, ESQ. 6401 Security Boulevard LUIS PERE, ESQ. Baltimore, Maryland 21235 Attorneys for Defendant Mae A. D'Agostino, U.S. District Judge: ORDER Plaintiff Alexandria S. commenced this action pursuant to

(g) seeking review of the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (the "Commissioner") denying her application for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB"). See Dkt. No. 1. In a Report-Recommendation and Order dated February 3, 2023 (the "Report-Recommendation"), Magistrate Judge Stewart recommended that (1) Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings be granted in part and denied in part; (2) Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings be denied; and (3) the Commissioner's decision be reversed and this matter be remanded for further proceedings. See Dkt. No. 16. Neither party has filed objections to the Report-Recommendation. When a party declines to file objections to a magistrate judge's report-recommendation or files "[g]eneral or conclusory objections or objections which merely recite the same arguments [presented] to the magistrate judge," the district court reviews those recommendations for clear error. O'Diah v. Mawhir, No. 9:08-CV-322,

, *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2011) (citations and footnote omitted); see also McAllan v. Von Essen,

(S.D.N.Y. 2007). "When performing such a 'clear error' review, 'the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.'" Canady v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No.

1:17-CV-0367,

, *1 n.1 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2017) (quotation and citations omitted). After the appropriate review, "the court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate [judge]."

(b)(1). The Court does not discern any clear error in the Report-Recommendation. As Magistrate Judge Stewart found, remand is warranted in this case because the ALJ (1) inappropriately found that the sole fact that Plaintiff was able to care for two young children and an elderly relative contradicted any finding of physical or mental disability, see Balsamo v. Chater,

(2d Cir. 1998) ("[A] claimant need not be an invalid to be found disabled under the Social Security Act"); and (2) placed disproportionate weight on Plaintiff's activities of daily living to

discredit both Plaintiff's consultative psychiatric examiner and her treating mental health provider without adequately articulating how he considered those medical opinions using the appropriate factors—including supportability and consistency—with respect to the medical evidence as a whole, see

(b)(2), (c); see also Claudio-Montanez v. Kijakazi, No. 21-2027,

, *3 (2d Cir. Dec. 20, 2022) ("[A] claimant's 'ability to engage in certain activities of daily living—such as caring for ... children ... is insufficient to render 'a treating physician's findings flawed'") (quoting Colgan v. Kijakazi,

, 363 (2d Cir. 2022)). An

2 ALJ is required to "'explain how [he or she] considered the supportability and consistency factors for a medical source's medical opinions or prior administrative medical findings in [its] determination or decision,'" Loucks v. Kijakazi, No. 21-1749,

, *1 (2d Cir. June 17, 2022) (quotation omitted), and the ALJ's failure to do so "is grounds for remand," Telesco v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.,

, 344 (S.D.N.Y. 2021), report and recommendation adopted,

(S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2022) (citations omitted). Magistrate Judge Stewart also soundly concluded that remand with the direction to award benefits is not

appropriate in this case because the record does not persuasively establish "'evidence of total disability that render[s] any further proceedings pointless.'" Stacey v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin.,

, 11 (2d Cir. 2020) (quoting Williams v. Apfel,

(2d Cir. 1999)). Accordingly, after carefully reviewing the Report-Recommendation, the entire record in this matter, and the applicable law, the Court hereby ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Stewart's Report-Recommendation and Order (Dkt. No. 16) is ADOPTED in its entirety for the reasons set forth herein; and the Court further

ORDERS that Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; and the Court further ORDERS that Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED; and the Court further ORDERS that the Commissioner's decision is REVERSED, and this case is REMANDED, pursuant to sentence four of

(g), for further proceedings consistent with this Order and Magistrate Judge Stewart's Report-Recommendation and Order; and the Court further

3 ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in Plaintiff's favor and close this case; and the Court further ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order on the parties in accordance with the Local Rules. IT ISSO ORDERED.

Dated: March 21, 2023 J) da ie LD (hpez ts Albany, New York Mae A. D’ Agostino” U.S. District Judge