The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT C L E RK
4:37 pm, Jan 22, 2024
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------X U.S. DIST R ICT COURT
OCTAVIA O’BRIEN, EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
LONG ISLAND OFFICE
Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM
OF DECISION &
-against- ORDER
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 22-CV-7614(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 Octavia O’Brien (“Plaintiff” or “Claimant”) challenges final determinations by
the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“Defendant” or “Commissioner”) that
she was ineligible to receive Social Security disability insurance benefits. See Docket Entry
(“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 15, 16.
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 provider opinions. 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 (E.D.N.Y. 2021), which discussion is hereby incorporated by reference.
Furthermore, the central factual questions are brought into focus by the parties’ contention
statements, a practice implemented by the undersigned’s Individual Practice Rules, as further
1
discussed in Madigan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 525 F.Supp.3d 413, 415 (E.D.N.Y. 2021). Here,
those issues are markedly narrow. Principally, counsel for plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred in
failing to consider the impact of side effects of medication prescribed to plaintiff, as well as the
interference of chronic pain on her ability to concentrate in evaluating her ability to work. DE 15-
2. In response, the Commissioner contends that the ALJ noted that plaintiff had not been compliant
in taking the subject medication and that the evidence failed to demonstrate that plaintiff had taken
such medication or suffered any side effects. DE 16-2 (citing Tr. 34, 37, 56, 291, 298 and 700–
01). As to her ability to concentrate, counsel persuasively demonstrated that, notwithstanding a
finding by Dr. Haq regarding her ability to concentrate, Tr. 676, the record evidence demonstrated
that examination revealed that plaintiff had a normal attention span. Tr. 9, 491. The ALJ clearly
considered Dr. Haq’s opinions, noting that the doctor offered no opinion regarding her residual
functional capacity, as Haq was “unsure” about most of her alleged limitations. Tr. 38.
In considering the record as a whole, it is clear that the ALJ’s opinion is amply supported
by substantial evidence. See 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. Colvin, 523 F. App’x 58, 59 (2d Cir. 2013)). It appears that the ALJ properly assessed the
plaintiff’s residual functional capacity given that plaintiff’s history showed “essentially normal
physical limitations and conservative care.” Tr. 37. Thus, this Court must affirm the decision of
the Commissioner.
Based on the foregoing, the Commissioner’s motion is granted, and plaintiff’s motion is
denied. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close the case.
2
SO ORDERED.
Dated: Central Islip, New York
January 22, 2024
/s/ Gary R. Brown
GARY R. BROWN
United States District Judge
3