Badstuebner v. Kijakazi

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION & ORDER denying 9 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 10 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings: Based on the foregoing, the Commissioners motion is granted, and Plaintiffs motion is denied. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close the case. SEE ATTACHED ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS. So Ordered by Judge Gary R. Brown on 5/8/2024. (JC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------X
MICHAEL ANTHONY BADSTUEBNER,

FILED 
CLERK 

4:57 pm, May 08, 2024

U.S. DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 
LONG ISLAND OFFICE 

MEMORANDUM
OF DECISION &
ORDER

Plaintiff,
-againstCOMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

23-CV-6715 (GRB)

Defendant.
---------------------------------------------------------X
GARY R. BROWN, United States District Judge:
“Mr. Badsteubner’s neurological examination is essentially
normal. [He] was in agreement with this assessment…..”
-Report from Plaintiff’s treating neurologist 1
The parties have cross-moved for judgment on the pleadings in this action seeking review
of the denial of Social Security disability benefits by the Commissioner. Docket Report (“DE”)
9, 10. For the reasons that follow, the Commissioner’s motion, DE 10, is GRANTED, and
Plaintiff’s motion, DE 9, is DENIED.
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 evaluation of vocational evidence and medical
evidence. These standards, along with numerous authorities and citations, are discussed at length

1

References to “Tr.” are to the Transcript of the Administrative Record filed in this case, at 14.

1

in Zacharopoulos v. Saul, 516 F. Supp. 3d 211 (E.D.N.Y. 2021), which discussion is hereby
incorporated by reference.
Plaintiff, a former UPS driver, stopped working in 2017 due to a work-related injury and
then “decided to retire” from his job with an early pension, as he believed he could no longer
perform the heavy lifting required by his job. Tr. at 220-22. He alleges disability since 2019
primarily due to issues with his shoulder, back, wrist and foot. Id. at 398. While the ALJ found
Plaintiff disabled from his prior work, the ALJ also found that Plaintiff could perform a range of
light unskilled work, a conclusion based in part upon vocational testimony suggesting that
Plaintiff could work as a cashier, maid and cafeteria worker. Id. at 238-41.
Like so many administrative appeals brought before this Court, this case emanates from a
massive record (in this case, a 760-page administrative record supplemented by hundreds of
additional pages of legal filings) laden with matters that are irrelevant, puzzling and, at times,
misleading. See DE 5. Such deforestation is influenced, in part, from its relationship to the state
workers’ compensation system, which appears to have unlimited capacity to generate immaterial
paperwork.
For example, the record contains at least one “Doctor’s Progress Report” from 2017
purportedly submitted by Dr. Jeffery Sider, M.D., featuring a “Doctor’s Opinion” based on
examination, that Plaintiff was suffering from a “temporary impairment” of 50%. Tr. at 69-72.
The record also contains a letter regarding this document from Stuart A. Goldstein, apparently a
non-lawyer licensed rep employed by a workers’ compensation law firm representing Plaintiff,
which casually relates the following extraordinary assertions:
…the report indicates that Dr. Sider gave a 50% disability, please find a letter
from Dr. Sider’s office indicating that he did not see the claimant and that the
bills were submitted for physical therapy under the doctor’s name but he never
examined the claimant.
2

Id. at 63 (emphasis added). Whether this telling letter from Dr. Sider is part of the record here is
not readily apparent. In place of Dr. Sider’s ersatz examination report, Mr. Goldstein urges
adoption by workers’ compensation reviewers of an opinion by Dr. Shebairo, who found a
“100% temporary impairment.” Id. at 63, 65. Ultimately, however, these opinions matter little,
as “the standards for disability under workers’ compensation programs are entirely
distinguishable from those for Social Security disability insurance benefits.” Naumov v. Comm’r
of Soc. Sec., 539 F. Supp. 3d 273, 275 (E.D.N.Y. 2021).
Finding little refuge in the opinions by Plaintiff’s treating physicians, his counsel, in an
unusual turn, attempts to challenge the findings of the ALJ based principally upon the opinions
of a single consultative examiner. DE 9 at 15-21 (arguing that the ALJ improperly disregarded
certain opinions of consultative examiner Dr. Lambert-Doorn); DE 11 at 2-5 (same). Here,
however, Dr. Lambert-Doorn’s opinions, which suggested some limitations for Plaintiff, were
thoroughly considered by the ALJ, and partly accepted. Tr. at 30-31. The ALJ’s position is
readily understandable, given that opinions by this one consultant are undermined by other
medical evidence and opinions of record: one treating orthopedist had not seen the Plaintiff for a
year and found no such limitations, id. at 9, while another consulting orthopedist determined
Plaintiff was suffering solely from “lumbar sprain” and required no further treatment or therapy.
Id. at 54.
Thus, in considering the record as a whole, it is clear that 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
3

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 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
May 8, 2024
/s/ Gary R. Brown
GARY R. BROWN
United States District Judge

4