# Zucker v. Commissioner of Social Security

> District Court, E.D. New York · August 4, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10308246

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. New York
- **Decided:** August 4, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10308246

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11:22 am, Aug    04,2022
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK U.S. DI S TRICT COURT
---------------------------------------------------------X EASTERN DIS T RICT OF NEW YORK
ADAM ZUCKER, LONG ISLAND OFFICE

Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM
OF DECISION &
-against- ORDER

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 20 CV 5818 (GRB)

Defendant.
---------------------------------------------------------X

GARY R. BROWN, United States District Judge:
In this appeal brought pursuant to the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405 et seq. (the
“Act”), plaintiff Adam Zucker challenges final determinations by the Commissioner of the Social
Security Administration that he was ineligible to receive Social Security disability insurance
benefits. See DE 1. Presently before the Court are the parties’ cross motions, pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(c), for judgment on the pleadings.
In its review, the Court has applied the frequently reiterated standards for entitlement to
Social Security disability benefits, review of a denial of such benefits, consideration of motions
for judgment on the pleadings, examination of the procedures employed, the substantial evidence
rule, deference accorded to ALJ decisions, and the evaluation of vocational evidence. These
standards, along with numerous authorities and citations, are discussed at length, merely by way
of example, in Zacharopoulos v. Saul, 516 F. Supp. 3d 211, 219 (E.D.N.Y. 2021), which discussion
is hereby incorporated by reference.
Furthermore, the sole evidentiary question is brought into focus by the parties’ contention
statements, a practice implemented by the undersigned’s Individual Practice Rules, as further
discussed in Madigan v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 525 F. Supp. 3d 413, 415 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2021),
1
and incorporated herein by reference.1 The sole question at issue is whether the ALJ erred in
finding that plaintiff’s mental impairment failed to meet the criteria for listing 12.06, to wit:
whether the plaintiff established that he had a “marked” limitation of two areas of mental
functioning. The ALJ determined that the plaintiff had only “moderate” limitations, while one
medical provider indicated that plaintiff faced “marked” limitations in several areas.

A careful review of the ALJ’s decision reveals that it was thoughtfully done and carefully
balanced. In fact, the ALJ rejected opinions by several state consulting physicians suggesting that
the plaintiff had no mental impairments. The ALJ’s determination to reject the single, conclusory
indication that plaintiff suffered from “marked” limitations was firmly supported by medical
evidence from another provider as well as contrary indications from the subject treating source.
See Tr. at 16-17. While the distinction between “marked” and “moderate” limitations may seem
like a hair-splitting determination, the ALJ’s decision was based on a fair assessment of the record
evidence.
Thus, in considering the record as a whole, the ALJ’s opinion is amply supported by
substantial evidence. Zacharopoulos, 516 F. Supp. 3d at 220 (“[T]he findings of the Commissioner

as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and
therefore, the relevant question is not whether substantial evidence supports plaintiff’s position,
but whether ‘substantial evidence supports the ALJ's decision.’”) (quoting Bonet ex rel. T.B. v.

1 In this case, plaintiff’s counsel’s contention statement was as counsel noted, exactly the same as its memorandum
of law. In fact, counsel simply separated its memorandum of law into individual sentences, numbering each as a
separate paragraph. This clearly runs afoul of both the letter and spirit of the contention statement directive,
according to which counsel “shall set forth a separate, short, and concise statement, in numbered paragraphs, the
contentions of the plaintiff as to the alleged legal errors in the [Commissioner]’s determination and/or the specific
findings of the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) that, plaintiff contends, is not supported by
substantial evidence.” Madigan, 525 F. Supp. 3d at 415. Nevertheless, the contention statements still served the
purpose of identifying the issue in this case.
2
Colvin, 523 Fed. App’x 58, 59 (2d Cir. 2013)). Thus, this Court must affirm the decision of the
Commissioner.
Based on the foregoing, the Commissioner’s motion is granted, and the Plaintiff’s motion
is denied. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close the case.

SO ORDERED.
Dated: Central Islip, New York
August 4, 2022

/s/ Gary R. Brown
GARY R. BROWN
United States District Judge

3

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10308246. Public record. Not legal advice.