The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------X
FRANK TEMPERINO,
Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM
OF DECISION &
-against- ORDER
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 22-CV-376(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 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. DE 12 and 16.
The plaintiff, at age 27, was previously employed as a highway maintenance worker and
construction worker, but now suffers from spinal impairments, with associated neuropathy and
migraine headaches, that the ALJ found prevents his return to this previous employment. Tr. 12-
21.1 A panoply of relatively minor medical issues has little effect on this matter. Id. The ALJ
carefully examined the extensive record presented and determined that the plaintiff could
1References to “Tr.” are to the Transcript of the Administrative Record filed in this case.
1
perform certain light work, including several positions that existed in substantial numbers in the
national economy.2 Id. at 15-22.
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, evaluation of vocational evidence and the weight
accorded to medical sources. 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,
218 (E.D.N.Y. 2021), which discussion is hereby incorporated by reference.
Furthermore, the central evidentiary questions are 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., No. 20-CV-445 (GRB), 2021 WL 956178,
at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2021), and incorporated herein by reference. Principally, counsel for
plaintiff contends that the ALJ failed to properly weigh various physicians’ opinions. Plaintiff’s
objections, however, constitute little more than quarrelling with word choices, and counsel’s
suggestion that more information was required from certain physicians does not prove
persuasive.
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 find-ings of the- Commissioner as to
any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and therefore,
2 Unlike several cases examined by this Court, the alternative vocations considered here – router, sales attendant
and furniture rental consultant – constitute occupations that are not obviously obsolete. Compare Wagner v.
Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 21-CV-3627 (GRB), 2022 WL 3346430 at *1 (E.D.N.Y. 2022) (rejecting reliance on
photo development counter clerk position); Zacharopoulos, 516 F. Supp. 3d at 221(condemning “unblinking
acceptance” of conclusory vocational expert testimony regarding microfilm document preparer positions).
2
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. Colvin, 523 F.
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
February 28, 2023
/s/ Gary R. Brown
GARY R. BROWN
United States District Judge
3