# Shah v. Commissioner of Social Security

> District Court, E.D. New York · August 8, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10659147

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. New York
- **Decided:** August 8, 2024
- **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/10659147

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3:50 pm, A ug  08, 2024
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK U.S. DI S TRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------X
LONG ISLAND OFFICE
ABHISHEK SHAH,

Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM
OF DECISION &
-against- ORDER

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 23-CV-4700 (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.
1112(1c1), for judgment on the pleadings.
The question presented on this appeal is whether the ALJ properly determined that the
plaintiff, a younger individual and medical school graduate, who was disabled by several
psychiatric conditions from prior relevant employment, retained the residual functional capacity
to perform work that disentitles him from benefits. More specifically, the plaintiff challenges the
ALJ’s assessment of medical evidence and plaintiff’s testimony. DE 19.
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

1
rule, deference accorded to ALJ decisions, evaluation of vocational evidence and, importantly in
this case, the proper assessment of medical evidence. These standards, along with numerous
authorities and citations, are discussed at length, merely by way of example, in Zacharopoulos v.
Saul, No. 19-5075 (GRB), 2021 WL 235630 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2021), which discussion is

hereby incorporated by reference. Furthermore, the central evidentiary question is brought into
focus by the parties’ contention statements, a practice implemented by the undersig-ned’s
-Individual Practice Rules, as further discussed in Madigan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 2021 WL
956178, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2021), and incorporated herein by reference.
Plaintiff relies heavily upon the assessment of his condition by Dr. Skolnick, a treating
psychiatrist. DE 23 at 368-72. However, while selected responses in that document could be
read as problematic, on balance, that assessment does not dictate a finding that the plaintiff is
disabled. Read in the context of the other medical evidence of record, including other findings
by that provider over a period of years, the ALJ’s determination does not appear unwarranted.
The vocational expert’s credible testimony providing that plaintiff, notwithstanding his
limitations, retained the capacity to work as, for example, an industrial cleaner, further supported

the ALJ’s determination. That plaintiff looked for work and, for a time, successfully held a job
working up to 25 hours per week further buttresses the ALJ’s conclusions. As to plaintiff’s
subjective complaints, the law requires that the ALJ consider them. It does not dictate that he
must credit them.
Thus, in considering the record as a whole, it is clear that the ALJ’s opinion is amply
supported by substantial evidence. Zacharopoulos, 2021 WL 235630, at *7 (“[T]he fi-ndings of
the Commissioner as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive, 42 U.S.C.

2
-§ 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))). 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 8, 2024

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

3

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10659147. Public record. Not legal advice.