UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ________________________________________

CHARLES B.,

Plaintiff,

v. 8:24-CV-01232 (ML) COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant. ________________________________________

APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL:

SCHNEIDER & PALCSIK MARK A. SCHNEIDER, ESQ. Counsel for the Plaintiff 57 Court Street Plattsburgh, New York 12901

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION FERGUS J. KAISER, ESQ. Counsel for the Defendant Special Assistant U.S. Attorney 6401 Security Boulevard Baltimore, Maryland 21235

MIROSLAV LOVRIC, United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER Currently pending before the Court in this action, in which Plaintiff seeks judicial review of an adverse administrative determination by the Commissioner of Social Security, pursuant to

(g), are cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings.1 Oral argument was heard

1 This matter, which is before me on consent of the parties pursuant to

(c), has been treated in accordance with the procedures set forth in General Order No. 18. Under that General Order once issue has been joined, an action such as this is considered procedurally, as if cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings had been filed pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. in connection with those motions on September 22, 2025, during a telephone conference conducted on the record. At the close of argument, I issued a bench decision in which, after applying the requisite deferential review standard, I found that the Commissioner’s determination was supported by substantial evidence, providing further detail regarding my reasoning and addressing the specific issues raised by Plaintiff in this appeal. After due deliberation, and based upon the Court’s oral bench decision, which has been transcribed, is attached to this order, and is incorporated herein by reference, it is ORDERED as follows: 1) Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. Nos. 15 & 17) is DENIED. 2) Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 16) is GRANTED. 3) The Commissioner’s decision denying Plaintiff Social Security benefits is AFFIRMED. 4) Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED. 5) The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment, based upon this determination, DISMISSING Plaintiff's Complaint in its entirety and closing this case. Dated: September 26, 2025 Binghamton, New York | > Miroslav Lovric United States Magistrate Judge Northern District of New York

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------x CHARLES B.,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 8:24cv01232

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant. --------------------------------------------x

Transcript of a Decision held via Teleconference on September 22, 2025, the HONORABLE MIROSLAV LOVRIC, United States Magistrate Judge, Presiding.

A P P E A R A N C E S For Plaintiff: SCHNEIDER & PALCSIK 57 Court Street Plattsburgh, NY 12901 BY: MARK A. SCHNEIDER, ESQ.

For Defendant: OFFICE OF PROGRAM LITIGATION, OFFICE 2 Social Security Administration 6401 Security Boulevard Baltimore, MD 21235 BY: FERGUS J. KAISER, ESQ.

Lisa M. Mazzei, RPR Official United States Court Reporter 10 Broad Street Utica, New York 13501 (315) 266-1176 1 THE COURT: All right. Well, the Court is going to 2 begin its decision and reasoning as follows: 3 First, I start with, Plaintiff has commenced this 4 proceeding pursuant to Title

405(g) to challenge the adverse determination by the 6 Commissioner of Social Security finding that he was not 7 disabled at the relevant times and therefore ineligible for 8 the benefits that he sought. 9 First, I turn to the prehearing motions that were 10 made in this case by Plaintiff. A number of motions were 11 filed in this case, and the Court will briefly address them 12 here. 13 On November 22nd of 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion 14 at Docket Number 13 to increase the page limit for each 15 party's initial brief to 46 pages. On November 25th of 2024, 16 this Court granted Plaintiff's motion at Docket Number 14, 17 with the instruction that the parties review their briefs to 18 excise any extraneous material that is not necessary to 19 advance their arguments. 20 The Court notes that Plaintiff's brief totaled 46 21 pages, but the Court also notes that it included almost 24 22 pages of verbatim recitation of portions of the hearing 23 transcript. Plaintiff's treatment notes and medical 24 opinions, all of which are readily available in the 25 administrative record. Plaintiff's arguments comprise of 17 1 pages of the brief and do not present any novel issues. This 2 Court further notes it has granted Plaintiff's request to 3 exceed the briefing page limit in at least one other pending 4 case, and the Court respectfully cautions Plaintiff -- I 5 should say Plaintiff's counsel that the Court may treat 6 future requests to file an oversized brief with greater 7 skepticism. This advisement does not in any way affect this 8 Court's review of the substance of Plaintiff's claims here 9 today. 10 On December 10, 2024, Plaintiff filed a request at 11 Docket Number 18 for expedited review of this matter, which 12 Defendant opposed on December 12, 2024, at Docket Number 19. 13 This Court denied Plaintiff's motion on December 16, 2024, at 14 Docket Number 20. On March 7, 2025, Plaintiff renewed his 15 request for expedited review at Docket Number 21, which this 16 Court denied on March 24th of 2025, at Docket Number 31. 17 Currently pending before this Court are Plaintiff's 18 requests for consideration of new evidence at Docket Numbers 19 21 and 22, both filed on March 6, 2025, and Docket Number 24, 20 filed on March 21st of 2025. Defendant opposed these motions 21 on March 22nd of 2025, at Docket Number 29. 22 The evidence at Docket Number 21 consists of a 23 consultative physical examination report prepared by 24 Dr. Benjamin Young on December 11, 2024, in connection with a 25 new application for disability benefits filed by Plaintiff 1 after the ALJ's decision at issue in this case. 2 The evidence at Docket Number 22 consists of a 3 December 20, 2024 consultative psychiatric evaluation 4 prepared by Dr. Brett Hartman in connection with that 5 subsequent application. 6 Docket Number 24 consists of a March 20, 2025 7 psychological evaluation to assess the aggravation of 8 Plaintiff's existing posttraumatic stress disorder, also 9 known as PTSD, after he learned in January 2025 that he did 10 not have lymphoma. Although such information would 11 ordinarily be a source of relief, Plaintiff had incorrectly 12 believed for the previous two years that the mass in his 13 chest was terminal cancer. 14 The Court starts by indicating, a Court may, at any 15 time, order additional evidence to be taken before the 16 Commissioner of Social Security, but only upon a showing that 17 there is new evidence that is material and that there is good 18 cause of the failure to incorporate such evidence into the 19 record in a prior proceeding. See Title 42, U.S. Code 20 405(g). The Second Circuit has articulated a three-pronged 21 standard for determining whether remand to consider new 22 evidence is appropriate; and the Court notes the proffered 23 evidence must be: 24 One, new and not merely cumulative of what is 25 already in the record. 1 Two, material that is both probative and relevant 2 to the time period for which benefits were denied, and 3 Three, plaintiff must show good cause for failing 4 to present the evidence earlier. 5 Because the medical evidence did not exist at the 6 time of the ALJ's decision or the Appeals Council's review, 7 this Court finds that all three documents are new and that 8 Plaintiff had good cause for failing to present it during the 9 administrative process. 10 However, this Court finds that none of the 11 proffered evidence is material, because it does not address 12 Plaintiff's condition at the time of the ALJ's decision. 13 It is well-recognized that consultative opinions 14 are a one-time snapshot, and both consultative examination 15 reports provided by Plaintiff address his functional 16 limitations approximately three months after the ALJ's 17 decision, and approximately three years after the alleged 18 onset date. 19 The March 2025 psychological consultation was 20 commissioned due to concerns that Plaintiff's mental health 21 symptoms were aggravated in January 2025 due to a 22 misunderstanding of a potential cancer diagnosis. Plaintiff 23 has not known, and this Court does not see, how this new 24 evidence is probative or relevant to the September 2024 25 disability determination in this case. Therefore, all of 1 plaintiffs motions to consider new evidence are denied. 2 Letter Motion 34 in the docket was also denied by 3 this Court at Order Number 35 for similar reasons. 4 Plaintiff's recent medical issues represent a worsening of 5 his symptoms that did not exist at the time of the ALJ's 6 September of 2024 decision and would not bear on whether the 7 ALJ's disability determination was supported by substantial 8 evidence. Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion 34 was denied for 9 similar reasons. 10 The Court now turns to the decision and analysis on 11 the merits of this matter and the filings in this case. 12 Moving to the substance of this case, the Court 13 notes background information as follows: 14 Plaintiff was born in February 1977. He is 15 currently approximately 48 years old. He was approximately 16 45 years old on the date of this application for benefits. 17 Plaintiff stands approximately 6'1" in height, and 18 weighs approximately 243 pounds. Although he has weighed 19 over 300 pounds at times during the period under review. 20 Plaintiff is a high school graduate who has worked 21 as a construction laborer, maintenance worker, and plumber's 22 assistant. He reported that he left most of these positions 23 after less than a year due to interpersonal conflicts in the 24 workplace. 25 At the time of his administrative hearing on 1 August 12, 2024, Plaintiff resided alone. 2 Plaintiff has a history of chronic neck and back 3 pain that radiates to his legs. In the last few years, 4 Plaintiff has experienced fatigue, shortness of breath, and 5 weight loss accompanied with significantly elevated blood 6 pressure. Imaging reports showed a chest mass that raised 7 concerns about potential lymphoma. 8 Plaintiff has been prescribed medication for 9 anxiety, depression, and PTSD and reported that the 10 associated symptoms caused difficulty with social 11 interaction. 12 Procedurally, the Court notes as follows: 13 Plaintiff applied for Title II benefits on July 21 14 of 2022, alleging an onset date of November 1, 2021. 15 In support of his application for benefits, 16 Plaintiff claimed disability based on a number of physical 17 and mental health impairments, including anxiety, PTSD, 18 bipolar disorder, depression, back, shoulder, and neck pain, 19 hypertension, and a heart condition. 20 Administrative Law Judge Asad Ba-Yunus conducted a 21 hearing on August 12, 2024, to address Plaintiff's 22 application for benefits. 23 ALJ Ba-Yunus issued an unfavorable decision on 24 September 10, 2024. That decision became the final 25 determination of the agency on September 20, 2024, when the 1 Appeals Council denied Plaintiffs expedited request for 2 review. 3 This action was commenced on August 8, 2024, and it 4 is timely. 5 In his September 10, 2024 decision, the ALJ first 6 determined that Plaintiff met the insured status requirements 7 of the Social Security Act through December 31 of 2028. And 8 then the ALJ commenced the familiar five step test for 9 determining disability. 10 At step one, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff had 11 engaged in substantial gainful activity, also known as SGA, 12 during portions of 2022 and 2023, and limited his disability 13 determination to other periods after the alleged onset date 14 when Plaintiff did not engage in SGA. 15 At step two, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff had 16 the following severe impairments: 17 First, anxiety disorder, depressive/bipolar 18 disorder, PTSD, hypertension, status post left shoulder 19 surgery, status post bilateral knee surgery, status post 20 bilateral carpal tunnel release, obesity, and chronic kidney 21 disease. 22 At step three, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff did 23 not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met 24 or medically equaled the severity of one of the listed 25 impairments. In making this determination, the ALJ expressly 1 considered Listings 1.18, as it relates to abnormality of a 2 major joint in any extremity. 4.00, dealing with 3 cardiovascular system. 6.05, relating to chronic kidney 4 disease with impairment of kidney function. 12.04, relating 5 to depressive bipolar and related disorders. 12.06, related 6 to anxiety and obsessive compulsive disorders. 12.15, 7 relating to trauma and stressor-related disorders. And, 8 lastly, 13.05, relating to lymphoma. 9 Next, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff has the 10 residual functional capacity, also known as RFC, to perform 11 less than the full range of light work. Specifically, the 12 ALJ concluded and found that Plaintiff can occasionally 13 balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, crawl, and climb ramps, 14 stairs, ladders, ropes or scaffolds. 15 The ALJ found Plaintiff may have up to occasional 16 exposure to all workplace hazards, including unprotected 17 heights and dangerous machinery. 18 The ALJ also found Plaintiff may only perform 19 simple tasks. 20 Also, that Plaintiff may have occasional 21 interaction with coworkers and the general public. 22 And, lastly, the ALJ found that Plaintiff can 23 tolerate occasional changes to a routine work setting. 24 At step four, the ALJ found that Plaintiff could 25 not perform any past relevant work. 1 At step five, the ALJ relied on the vocational 2 expert testimony to find that considering Plaintiff's age, 3 education, work experience, and RFC, that there were jobs 4 existing in significant numbers in the national economy that 5 Plaintiff could perform. 6 Accordingly, the ALJ found Plaintiff was not 7 disabled from his alleged onset date of November 1, 2021, up 8 to September 10, 2024, the date of the ALJ's decision. 9 The Court next turns to Plaintiff's arguments. 10 Now, first, the Court advises, as the parties know, this 11 Court's functional role in this case is limited and extremely 12 differential. I must determine whether correct legal 13 principles were applied and whether the determination is 14 supported by substantial evidence, which is defined as such 15 relevant evidence as a reasonable mind would find sufficient 16 to support a conclusion. As the Second Circuit noted in 17 Brault v. Social Security Administration Commissioner, found 18 at 683 F.3rd 443, that's a 2012 case, and the Circuit therein 19 indicated this standard is demanding more so than the clearly 20 erroneous standard. The Court noted in Brault that once 21 there's a finding of fact, that fact can be rejected only if 22 a reasonable factfinder would have to conclude otherwise. 23 Now, Plaintiff raises several contentions in this 24 proceeding: 25 First, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to 1 properly evaluate most of the medical and mental health 2 opinion evidence, namely: 3 That the Plaintiff argues the ALJ erred by 4 discounting the most restrictive portions of consultative 5 examining psychologist Dr. Brett Hartman's opinions, 6 resulting in a flawed analysis of the mental health Listings 7 and an erroneous RFC determination. 8 Plaintiff also argues the ALJ's error included 9 discounting the most restrictive physical functional 10 limitations opined by Plaintiff's primary care physician, 11 Dr. David Simcoe. 12 And also finding the opinions of four non-examining 13 state agency consultants persuasive, when those opinions were 14 rendered stale or out of date by subsequent medical records 15 as argued by Plaintiff. 16 Plaintiff then secondly argues the ALJ failed to 17 address the discrepancy between the moderate mental health 18 limitations established at step three and the RFC 19 determination allowing for many forms of light work. 20 Third, Plaintiff argues the ALJ failed to properly 21 consider the functional limitations imposed by Plaintiff's 22 obesity and uncontrolled high blood pressure and 23 hypertension. 24 And then, fourth, the Plaintiff argues the ALJ 25 failed to properly credit the Plaintiff's subjective 1 description of his symptoms and functional limitations. 2 The Court begins its analysis and reasoning as 3 follows: 4 This Court finds that substantial evidence supports 5 the ALJ's evaluation of the evidence addressing Plaintiff's 6 physical and mental impairments, including the opinion and 7 testimonial evidence, for the reasons set forth in 8 defendant's brief and this Court also adds the following 9 analysis. 10 "At their most basic, the amended regulations 11 governing evaluation of medical opinion evidence require that 12 the ALJ explain his findings regarding the supportability and 13 consistency for each of the medical opinions pointing to 14 specific evidence in the record supporting those findings." 15 See case of Raymond M. v. Commissioner of Social Security, at 16 5:19-CV-1313, and that is a Magistrate Judge Baxter decision 17 that can be found at

at page 8. And that's a 18 Northern District New York February 22nd of 2021 decision. 19 Here, the ALJ conducted an appropriate review of 20 the consistency and supportability of the various medical and 21 mental health opinions by comparing each opinion in the 22 medical professional's own notes, the broader treatment 23 record, and the relevant opinions and the testimonial 24 evidence. 25 For example, Dr. Hartman conducted two separate 1 psychiatric consultative examinations of Plaintiff in 2 February 2023 and October 2023. 3 In both opinions, Dr. Hartman opined that Plaintiff 4 could understand, remember and apply simple directions. Most 5 relevant to this challenge, he opined in February of 2023 6 that Plaintiff had marked difficulty with social interaction 7 and emotional regulation. In October 2023, Dr. Hartman found 8 the same marked limitations in social interaction and 9 emotional regulation, but also opined that Plaintiff had 10 marked difficulty using reason and judgment and sustaining an 11 ordinary routine. 12 Plaintiff contends that the ALJ improperly ignored 13 or discounted the marked limitations described in 14 Dr. Hartman's opinions. Had the ALJ adopted all of the 15 marked limitations identified by Dr. Hartman, Plaintiff 16 likely would be considered disabled under the mental health 17 Listings or due to an RFC that precluded competitive work. 18 Taking the ALJ's decision as a whole, this Court 19 finds that the ALJ appropriately considered the 20 supportability and consistency factors by comparing both of 21 Dr. Hartman's opinions to one, a consultant's own examination 22 reports, as summarized in the ALJ's decision. Two, 23 Plaintiff's daily activities as reflected in treatment notes 24 and testimony that demonstrated independent self-care, 25 adequate social skills with treatment providers, friends, and 1 the general public. And, three, the opinions of two 2 non-examining psychological consultants, Dr. Fernandez and 3 Dr. Shefer, who each reviewed Plaintiff's then current 4 treatment records and opined that he had no more than 5 moderate mental health limitations. Both consultants' review 6 included Dr. Hartman's February 2023 opinion, and Dr. Sherer 7 reviewed Dr. Hartman's October 2023 opinion as well. 8 Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred by failing to 9 specifically mention Plaintiff's difficulties with the 10 "Serial 7s" portion of both of Dr. Hartman's consultative 11 examinations. "Serial sevens" is a cognitive test that 12 typically requires the patient to start at 100 and count down 13 by repeatedly subtracting 7. 14 In February 2023, Plaintiff made errors in 15 calculations and serial 7s, and in October 2023, Plaintiff 16 lost track on serial 7s. In his examination notes, 17 Dr. Hartman cited these results in support of his opinion 18 that Plaintiff's ability to maintain attention and 19 concentration were mildly impaired. 20 While the ALJ did not reference the serial 7 test 21 by name, the ALJ did cite the assessment of mildly impaired 22 attention when considering the supportability of 23 Dr. Hartman's opinion, and this Court finds no error in his 24 failure to cite the exact test by name or to impose 25 additional limitations based upon the results. 1 At step three, the ALJ found no more than moderate 2 limitations in the four functional areas related to mental 3 health. Plaintiff contends that if the ALJ finds moderate 4 mental limitations at step three, that he is required to 5 render an RFC that explicitly imposed those same conditions. 6 This Court rejects that argument. 7 A step three determination need not carry over 8 verbatim to the ultimate RFC determination because the two 9 determinations require distinct analysis. See the case of 10 Race v. Colvin. That's 1:14-CV-1357. It's found at

3511779, at page 3. And that's a Northern District New York 12 May 24, 2016 case. And therein, recognizing this, courts 13 typically decline to remand merely because an RFC 14 determination excludes a corresponding limitation found at 15 step three. What is required is an internally consistent 16 analysis that is supported by substantial evidence. The 17 ALJ's RFC determination in this case satisfies that standard. 18 Courts within this Circuit have typically found 19 that moderate mental health limitations can be addressed by 20 limiting an individual to unskilled work with simple tasks 21 and decision making, as the ALJ did here in this case. See 22 case of Jeff S. v. Commissioner of Social Security. That's 23 found at 8:23-CV-1576, and that is a Senior District Court 24 Frederick Scullin and Magistrate Judge Hummel case. It's 25 found at

, at page 5. And decision issued 1 Northern District of New York December 11, 2024. Report and 2 recommendation adopted

, and that's 3 January 21st of 2025. Thus, the ALJ's RFC determination is 4 both internally consistent with the moderate mental health 5 limitations described in his step three determination and 6 supported by substantial evidence in the form of multiple 7 psychiatric opinions assessing no more than moderate 8 limitations. 9 Similarly, Plaintiff contends that the ALJ's 10 assessment of Plaintiff's physical RFC should have conformed 11 to the opinion of Plaintiff's primary care physician, 12 Dr. David Simcoe. This argument does not present any grounds 13 for remand. 14 Dr. Simcoe diagnosed Plaintiff with uncontrolled 15 hypertension, hypertensive heart disease, ascending thoracic 16 aortic aneurysm, stage 3a kidney disease, and neoplasm of the 17 mediastinum. Plaintiff's brief characterizes each of these 18 as severe life-threatening conditions. But a diagnosis does 19 not necessarily translate into a disability finding, so the 20 ALJ must consider the functional limitations imposed by 21 diagnosed condition. 22 The ALJ did so here, finding that the postural 23 limitations in Dr. Simcoe's opinions were persuasive, and 24 incorporating these into the RFC by limiting Plaintiff to 25 only occasional bending, crouching, crawling and similar 1 maneuvers. Otherwise, the ALJ found the more restrictive 2 limitations in Dr. Simcoe's opinions related to sitting, 3 standing, walking and remaining on task to be unsupported by 4 routinely unremarkable examination notes, including 5 Dr. Simcoe's own. Dr. Simcoe's opinion did not provide a 6 significant narrative to contradict those findings. 7 The ALJ found the opinions of the non-examining 8 state agency consultants to be more persuasive than those of 9 Dr. Hartman or Dr. Simcoe. Plaintiff contends that all of 10 these opinions were out of date by the time of the ALJ's 11 disability determination, but offers no support for this 12 contention. Although some treatment records post-date these 13 opinions, Plaintiff has not identified any records suggesting 14 a deterioration of Plaintiff's condition or other factors 15 that would render any of the consulting opinions stale. 16 Plaintiff contends that the ALJ improperly 17 discounted his subjective testimony due to noncompliance with 18 his blood pressure medication and refusal to pursue 19 specialized mental health treatment, without conducting an 20 adequate inquiry into Plaintiff's reasons for each. 21 Plaintiff has a history of extreme hypertension 22 dating back to at least 2020, with a systolic blood pressure 23 often exceeding 200. Medical records from 2022 reflect some 24 improvement with blood pressure medication down to a mildly 25 elevated systolic blood pressure around 150, but frequent 1 noncompliance with medication. During his March 28, 2023 2 consultative physical examination with Dr. John Fkiaras, 3 Plaintiff reported that he stopped taking his blood pressure 4 medication in November 2022 because he does not want to be on 5 any medications. Dr. Simcoe's August 2024 opinion notes that 6 Plaintiff was on multiple blood pressure medications at that 7 time and was starting to show some improvement. The ALJ 8 discussed all of these records in his decision. 9 Treatment records and consultative examination 10 reports reviewed by the ALJ also depict Plaintiff declining 11 therapy or similar specialized mental health treatment due to 12 previous unsatisfactory experiences. 13 SSR 16-3p provides that an ALJ may consider an 14 individual's failure to seek treatment or follow prescribed 15 treatment, such as medication, when considering his 16 subjective complaints. However, in doing so, an ALJ must 17 consider possible reasons the claimant is not compliant or 18 has failed to seek treatment, an inquiry which may include 19 asking the claimant questions regarding their reasons for 20 noncompliance with medication or failure to seek treatment. 21 The treatment and examination notes cited by the 22 ALJ all raise concerns about Plaintiff's noncompliance with 23 his prescribed medication and proposed treatment. The same 24 notes show that Plaintiff's reasoning has ranged from a 25 general belief that the treatment was ineffective to being 1 unable to access his medication during a divorce dispute. 2 Plaintiff argues that further inquiry was necessary, but this 3 Court finds that the ALJ complied with his regulatory 4 requirements by considering the documented reasons for 5 noncompliance. Moreover, any failure to question Plaintiff 6 on the issue would be harmless error, in light of the 7 multiple other valid reasons the ALJ provided for discounting 8 portions of Plaintiff's testimony, in the form of treatment 9 notes, daily activities, and consultative examination 10 reports. See case of Shane C. vs. Commissioner of Social 11 Security. That's found at 1:20-CV-0895. That is a 12 Magistrate Judge Peebles' decision found at

, 13 at page 11, Northern District New York December 14 of 2021, 14 and therein finding that even if the ALJ erred by not 15 inquiring further about noncompliance with medication, such 16 error was harmless because the ALJ validly relied upon 17 medical evidence and activities of daily living to discount 18 Plaintiff's subjective description of his limitations. 19 For similar reasons, this Court finds no support 20 for Plaintiff's contention that the ALJ failed to properly 21 consider the combined effects of his physical and mental 22 impairments. 23 Regarding Plaintiff's diagnosed obesity, the ALJ 24 expressly found it to be a severe impairment at step two and 25 discussed its impact on Plaintiff's physical functioning at 1 steps three and four. This included a review of treatment 2 notes discussing Plaintiff's weight and body mass index, two 3 consultative examinations that referenced Plaintiff's weight, 4 and medical opinions that took Plaintiff's history of obesity 5 and recent unexplained weight loss into account. 6 More generally, the ALJ's decision includes a 7 thorough discussion at steps two, three, and four of 8 Plaintiff's physical and mental health treatment history. It 9 is evident to this Court that the ALJ's extensive description 10 of Plaintiff's various impairments informed his evaluation of 11 the various medical opinions and the testimonial evidence. 12 Finally, Plaintiff contends that the ALJ failed to 13 adequately credit his testimony regarding his physical and 14 mental functional limitations. Recognizing that a claimant's 15 subjective description of his symptoms cannot establish 16 disability by itself, and that a reviewing court must give 17 great deference to the ALJ's assessment of hearing testimony, 18 this Court finds that the ALJ marshaled substantial evidence 19 to support his conclusions in this area, and reasonably 20 credited or discounted Plaintiff's subjective complaints 21 against the broader medical record. 22 The ALJ's decision summarizes Plaintiff's own 23 description of his symptoms from a variety of sources, 24 including Plaintiff's application, examination notes, and 25 hearing testimony. It also considers Plaintiff's own 1 description of his activities of daily living after the 2 alleged onset date that included driving himself to 3 appointments, snowplowing his driveway, working part-time in 4 maintenance and laborer positions, socializing with friends, 5 taking care of pets, and performing household chores. The 6 ALJ also cited treatment notes that suggested greater 7 physical and mental capabilities than depicted in Plaintiff's 8 testimony. 9 In large measure, Plaintiff's challenges to the 10 ALJ's evaluation of the medical opinion and testimonial 11 evidence and the resulting RFC determination are largely 12 premised on a disagreement over how the ALJ resolved arguably 13 conflicting evidence about Plaintiff's functional 14 limitations. It is not sufficient that reasonable parties 15 could interpret the evidence differently, and it is not a 16 function of this reviewing Court to reweigh the evidence. 17 Therefore, this Court finds no justification for remand in 18 this case. 19 As a result, Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the 20 pleadings is denied; Defendant's motion for judgment on the 21 pleadings is granted; Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed; and 22 the Commissioner's decision denying Plaintiff benefits is 23 hereby affirmed. 24 As the Court indicated, I will have transcribed the 25 decision and reasoning that I just set forth on the record. 1 I will then append that to a summary order, and in short 2 order, file that in the docket. 3 That concludes the Court's decision in this case. 4 And other than that, Mr. Schneider, anything else for today? 5 MR. SCHNEIDER: Yes. I would just like the 6 clarification of your decision regarding the number of pages. 7 So you do not want me to give a full summary of the 8 facts in briefing this? Even though I have gone through 9 every page of the record, you are happy just to do it 10 yourself and I can give a brief or a summary? I don't really 11 understand. 12 THE COURT: No. Mr. Schneider, I think if you look 13 at the brief, there are -- I think I articulated there are 14 pages and pages, I think 20 something pages where literally 15 it's facts cut right out of the administrative record. 16 MR. SCHNEIDER: Right. 17 THE COURT: And that's not necessary, and it's not 18 very productive. It doesn't mean that parties don't discuss 19 the administrative record; you do all the time. But it's not 20 necessary to cut and paste it into your brief. 21 You can simply say, looking at pages X through Z, 22 and then make your arguments and so on. But it's very 23 wasteful just to cut pages out of the administrative record 24 and then put them into a brief. 25 There might be something where something is so 1 important or so unusual that you will, you know, put a 2 sentence or two that's an administrative record and then 3 highlight it in your brief and then go on and argue about it, 4 but, here, it was really not necessary. It was just putting 5 into your brief, many, many pages worth of things that are 6 just exactly out of the administrative record. So that was 7 my point in saying that. 8 MR. SCHNEIDER: Yeah. Okay. I mean, I really find 9 that it should be helpful to you for me to emphasize and 10 point out medical opinions that support the claims, and I 11 think the rules require a complete factual recitation of what 12 supports it. I could leave it out and then put it in the 13 argument itself, but, you know, I don't -- I have no reason 14 to write a brief that's too long. But once I have gone 15 through and spent many hours reading the complete record, I 16 think that it would help you in evaluating the case of 17 putting down the explicit findings and opinions. I just 18 am -- you know, I could write shorter briefs, but I think 19 then I would not be zealously representing my client. 20 So I just wanted to let you know that. That I -- I 21 don't think it's -- I think it's important to put down some 22 of the doctor's notes when they go to the impairments and 23 limitations. So I just wanted to state that on the record. 24 THE COURT: Okay. All right. Mr. Schneider, I 25 appreciate that. 1 MR. SCHNEIDER: Okay. Thank you. 2 THE COURT: Mr. Kaiser, anything else? 3 MR. KAISER: No, your Honor. 4 THE COURT: All right. All right, everyone. Well, 5 that concludes our proceeding for today. Have a good rest of 6 the day and have a very nice week. Take care, everybody. 7 (Court adjourned, 2:59 p.m.) 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER 2 3 I, LISA M. MAZZEI, RPR, Official U.S. Court 4 Reporter, in and for the United States District 5 Court for the Northern District of New York, DO 6 HEREBY CERTIFY that pursuant to Section 753, Title 7 28, United States Code, that the foregoing is a true 8 and correct transcript of the stenographically 9 reported proceedings held in the above-entitled 10 matter and that the transcript page format is in 11 conformance with the regulations of the Judicial 12 Conference of the United States. 13 14 Dated this 25th day of September, 2025. 15 16 17 /S/ LISA M. MAZZEI

18 LISA M. MAZZEI, RPR Official U.S. Court Reporter 19 20 21 22 23 24 25