UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _____________________________________________________

SUZANNE M. W.

Plaintiff,

v. 5:23-CV-268 (FJS/MJK) COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant. _____________________________________________________

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

OLINSKY LAW GROUP HOWARD D. OLINSKY, ESQ. 250 South Clinton Street, Suite 210 Syracuse, New York 13202 Attorneys for Plaintiff

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION JASON P. PECK, ESQ. OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL JOHANNY SANTANA, ESQ. 6401 Security Boulevard Baltimore, Maryland 21235 Attorneys for Defendant

SCULLIN, Senior Judge

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

Plaintiff commenced this action pursuant to the Social Security Act

(g), seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying her application for benefits. See Dkt. No. 1, Complaint. Plaintiff moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the Administrative Law Judge's ("ALJ") residual functional capacity ("RFC") determination was not supported by substantial evidence in the record because the ALJ failed to develop the record by obtaining a medical opinion from Nurse Practitioner Norris, a treating provider who specializes in rheumatology. See Dkt. No. 15, Plaintiff's Brief, at 8. In response, the Commissioner argued that (1) Plaintiff bore the ultimate burden of proving she was disabled; (2) Plaintiff was required to furnish medical and other evidence of disability as the Commissioner might require; (3) Plaintiff did not argue that any medical records were missing and her representative had agreed that the record was complete; (4) Plaintiff was represented by

experienced counsel and should be estopped from asserting that the ALJ erred in not performing a more exhaustive investigation; (5) Plaintiff had the duty to prove a more restrictive RFC; and (6) the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence. See generally Dkt. No. 17. On February 21, 2024, Magistrate Judge Katz issued a Report-Recommendation, in which he recommended that this Court grant Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings, deny Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings, reverse the Commissioner's decision and remand to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of

(g) for further proceedings consistent with his Report-Recommendation. See Dkt. No. 20 at 8. Neither Plaintiff nor the Commissioner filed any objections to Magistrate Judge Katz's recommendations and the time for them to do so has expired.

When a party does not object to a magistrate judge's report-recommendation, the court reviews that report-recommendation for clear error or manifest injustice. See Linares v. Mahunik, No. 9:05-CV-625,

, *10 (N.D.N.Y. July 16, 2009) (citation and footnote omitted). After conducting this review, "the Court may 'accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the . . . recommendations made by the magistrate judge.'"

(quoting

(b)(1)(C)). The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Katz's February 21, 2024 Report- Recommendation for clear error and manifest injustice; and, finding none, the Court hereby ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Katz's February 21, 2024 Report-Recommendation is ACCEPTED in its entirety for the reasons stated therein; and the Court further ORDERS that Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings, see Dkt. No. 15, is GRANTED and this matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner, pursuant to sentence four of 42 US.C. § 405(g), for further proceedings consistent with Magistrate Judge Katz's Report- Recommendation; and the Court further ORDERS that the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings, see Dkt. No. 17, is DENIED; and the Court further ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 8, 2024 mull afta — Syracuse, New York Senior United States District Judge

-3-