UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK : JENNIFER V., : : Plaintiff, : Civil No. 1:22-cv-101-MJP : -v- : : COMMISIONER : OF SOCIAL SECURITY, : : Defendant. : : ORDER Plaintiff filed an action seeking judicial review of the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, which denied her claims for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits and for supplemental security income, pursuant to

(g) made applicable to SSI by

(c)(3). Both parties filed Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings, and oral argument was held on July 1, 2025. This Court has reviewed the parties’ competing motions together with their respective memoranda of law, and the arguments of Rebecca M. Kujawa, Esq. of Hiller Comerford Injury & Disability Law PLLC, attorney of record for Plaintiff, and Timothy A. Razel, Esq., Special Assistant United States Attorney for the Western District of New York, attorney of record for Defendant. Now, upon all pleadings, the administrative record, the parties’ memoranda of law, and the arguments of the parties, It is ORDERED and ADJUDGED, for the reasons stated in open Court at the oral argument of this matter on July 1, 2025, pursuant to

(c) and the parties’ consent, and consistent with this Court’s ruling from the bench following oral argument, the decision of Defendant Commissioner is affirmed; and it is further ORDERED and ADJUDGED, that Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings (ECF No. 8) is denied; and it is further ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the transcript of the Court's Decision shall be filed, and the Court Clerk shall issue Judgment in favor of the Commissioner and close this case. SO ORDERED.

Whe hero MARK W. PEDERSEN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DATED: August 29, 2025 Rochester, New York

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------x JENNIFER L. VANAMBURG, 22-CV-101(MJP) Plaintiff, vs.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, July 1, 2025 Defendant. ------------------------------------x DECISION

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HONORABLE MARK W. PEDERSEN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

FOR PLAINTIFF: HILLER COMERFORD INJURY & DISABILITY LAW (Via telephone) BY: REBECCA M. KUJAWA, ESQ. 6000 North Bailey Avenue Suite 1A Amherst, New York 14226

FOR DEFENDANT: SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (Via telephone) OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL BY: TIMOTHY A. RAZEL, ESQ. 6401 Security Boulevard Baltimore, Maryland 21235

TRANSCRIBER: Diane S. Martens [email protected]

(Proceedings recorded by audio recording, transcript produced by computer.) 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 * * * 3 4 THE COURT: First, thank you both very much for your 5 thorough preparation and almost an hour and ten minutes of 6 argument today. 7 I'm ready to issue a decision. 8 Title 42 of U.S. Code, section 405(g) grants 9 jurisdiction to District Courts to hear claims based on the 10 denial of Social Security benefits. 11 Section 405(g) provides that the District Court shall 12 have the power to enter upon the pleadings and transcript of 13 the record, a judgment affirming, modifying or reversing the 14 decision of the Commissioner of Social Security with or 15 without remanding the cause for a rehearing. 16 It directs that when considering a claim, the Court must 17 accept the findings of fact made by the Commissioner provided 18 that such findings are supported by substantial evidence in 19 the record. 20 "Substantial evidence" is defined as more than a mere 21 scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable 22 mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. 23 To determine whether substantial evidence supports the 24 Commissioner's findings, the Court must examine the entire 25 record, including contradictory evidence and evidence from 1 which conflicting inferences can be drawn. 2 Section 405(g) limits the scope of the Court's review to 3 two inquiries: 4 One, whether the Commissioner's findings were supported 5 by substantial evidence in the record; and, 6 Two, whether the Commissioner's conclusions are based 7 upon an erroneous legal standard. 8 A person is disabled for the purposes of SSI and 9 Disability benefits if he or she is unable to engage in any 10 substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically 11 determinable physical or mental impairment which can be 12 expected to result in death or which has lasted, or can be 13 expected to last, for a continuous period of not less than 12 14 months. 15 In assessing whether a claimant is disabled, the ALJ 16 must employ a five-step sequential analysis described in 17 Berry v. Schweiker,

(2d Circuit 1982). 18 The claimant bears the burden of proving his or her case 19 at steps one through four. 20 At step five, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to 21 show there is other gainful work in the national economy 22 which the claimant could perform. 23 In this case, the claimant's first point is that the 24 administrative law judge did not reconcile the residual 25 functional capacity determination with Dr. Ransom's more 1 limiting opinion despite giving Dr. Ransom's opinion 2 substantial weight. 3 As the Commissioner points out, "moderate" is defined in 4 the regulations as a fair ability in those areas. 5 And in this case, Dr. Ransom found a moderate limitation 6 by this plaintiff in interacting adequately with supervisors, 7 coworkers, and the public; sustaining concentration and 8 performing a task at a consistent pace; sustaining an 9 ordinary routine and regular attendance at work; regulating 10 emotions; controlling behavior and maintaining wellbeing. 11 In cases cited by the plaintiff such as Jimmie E., 2021

, *5 Western District of New York, June 18, 2021, 13 Judge Roemer addressed an issue of marked to moderate 14 limitations in a case before him and stated "While the Court 15 acknowledges that moderate to marked limitations can be 16 consistent with a capacity to perform unskilled work, the ALJ 17 here did not provide an explanation or discussion how the 18 assessed limitations impacted plaintiff's ability to perform 19 simple unskilled work. This error warrants remand." 20 In that case, however, the limitations involved marked 21 to moderate and "marked" is listed as seriously limited by 22 the Commissioner's regulations; whereas "moderate", as I 23 stated, is a fair ability in those areas. 24 Further, in the case of Jimmie E, the doctor defined 25 what he meant by "moderate to marked in an objective manner 1 not present here". 2 Here, Dr. Ransom stuck to the definition in the 3 regulation. With regard to the administrative law judge's 4 hypothetical questions to the vocational examiner, I do find 5 that it was error not to include any mention of the moderate 6 limitations that Dr. Ransom found. 7 In the case of McIntyre v. Colvin,

, 52 8 (2d Cir. 2014). 9 The Appellate Court held that "Accordingly, an ALJ's 10 hypothetical should explicitly incorporate any limitations in 11 concentration, persistence and pace. We hold, however, that 12 an ALJ's failure to incorporate non-exertional limitations in 13 a hypothetical that is otherwise supported by evidence in the 14 record, is harmless error if, one, medical evidence 15 demonstrates that a claimant can engage in simple routine 16 tasks or unskilled work, despite limitations in 17 concentration, persistence and pace and the challenged 18 hypothetical is limited to include only unskilled work, or, 19 two, a hypothetical otherwise implicitly accounted for a 20 claimant's limitations in concentration, persistence and 21 pace." 22 I agree it was error for this ALJ not to account for the 23 limitations Dr. Ransom found which the ALJ accepted in his 24 hypothetical questions to the vocational expert. 25 However, the error in this case was harmless. 1 Plaintiff's second point is that the administrative law 2 judge improperly rejected Miss St. Laurant medical testimony. 3 I determined that the administrative law judge adequately 4 addressed what he gave only "some weight" to her opinions; 5 and, third, the plaintiff complains that the administrative 6 law judge gave only partial weight to Dr. Liu's opinion; 7 thereby, forming his residual functional capacity for the 8 plaintiff's physical constraints only on his lay opinion. 9 I find that the Second Circuit's decision in Mata 10 forecloses this line of argument. Accordingly, I gleaned 11 from the record substantial support for the ALJ's residual 12 functional capacity determination and, therefore, grant the 13 Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings and deny 14 the plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings. 15 I direct the Commissioner to draft and settle an order 16 with plaintiff's counsel and attach and reference a 17 transcript of this decision. 18 And I direct the Clerk to enter judgment for the 19 Commissioner and close this case. 20 This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court. 21 Thank you both, Counselors. 22 23 24 25 1 * * * 2 CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER 3 4 In accordance with 28, U.S.C., 753(b), I 5 certify that this is a true and correct record of proceedings 6 from the official electronic audio recording of the 7 proceedings held in the United States District Court 8 for the Western District of New York before the 9 Honorable Mark W. Pedersen on July 1, 2025. 10 11 12 S/ Diane S. Martens 13 Diane S. Martens Transcriber 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25