Albanese v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Jesse Furman
- 1:20-cv-08079
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Albanese v. Commissioner, Judge Furman adopted the recommendation, denied Albanese’s motion, and granted the Commissioner’s motion.
Tami Ann Albanese, whose application for disability Social Security benefits remained denied, and the Commissioner of Social Security, whose position prevailed.
What happened
In Albanese v. Commissioner of Social Security, Tami Ann Albanese challenged the denial of her application for disability benefits. Both sides asked the court to decide the case based on the filed pleadings.
A magistrate judge recommended denying Albanese’s motion and granting the Commissioner’s motion. Albanese objected, arguing that the administrative law judge did not properly consider the medical opinion of her treating physician, Dr. Roman Marmur.
Judge Furman found no clear error and adopted the recommendation in full. The court denied Albanese’s motion, granted the Commissioner’s motion, directed entry of judgment, and closed the case.
The detailed version
- Albanese v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:20-cv-08079
- Jesse Furman
- Mar. 29, 2022
Background
Tami Ann Albanese challenged the denial of her application for disability Social Security benefits. Both Albanese and the Commissioner filed motions for judgment on the pleadings, asking the court to decide the case based on the parties’ written filings. The court referred the motions to Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones.
Report and Recommendation and Objections
On February 3, 2022, Magistrate Judge Jones recommended denying Albanese’s motion and granting the Commissioner’s motion. Albanese filed objections, and the Commissioner opposed them.
A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s recommendations. For portions without a proper objection, the district court reviews for clear error. The court held that Albanese’s objections largely repeated arguments from her earlier filings, including language copied nearly word for word from her reply. The court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error only.
Court’s Analysis
The court found the recommendation well reasoned and supported by the facts and law. Albanese’s principal argument was that the administrative law judge did not adequately address medical-opinion evidence, particularly the opinion of her treating physician, Dr. Roman Marmur.
The court concluded that the administrative law judge properly evaluated Dr. Marmur’s opinion under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(b)(2), which requires consideration of an opinion’s supportability and consistency. The administrative law judge found the opinion unsupported by the objective medical evidence, including Dr. Marmur’s own treatment notes, which described mild to moderate pain and limitations during the relevant period. The administrative law judge also found the opinion inconsistent with the record as a whole, including opinions from Dr. Gilbert Jenouri and Dr. R. Pradhan.
The court also noted that Dr. Marmur submitted his opinions on a check-box functional-assessment form without supporting medical evidence such as test results or treatment notes. The court stated that this supported the decision to give the opinion less weight.
Disposition
Judge Jesse M. Furman adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The court denied Albanese’s motion and granted the Commissioner’s motion. It directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment consistent with the opinion and to close the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.