Alexa Jean M. v. Commissioner of Social Security

No. 5:25-CV-00158 (PJE) (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2026) · United States District Court for the Northern District of New York · March 20, 2026 · No. 5:25-CV-00158 (PJE)

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York reviewed the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of Alexa Jean M.'s application for disability insurance benefits. The court held that the administrative law judge applied the proper legal standards and supported the decision with substantial evidence, including the findings concerning the plaintiff's work activity, alleged accommodations, medical opinions, and residual functional capacity. The court affirmed the Commissioner's decision.

Court
United States District Court for the Northern District of New York
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Northern District of New York
Decision date
March 20, 2026
Docket number
5:25-CV-00158 (PJE)
Disposition
affirmed

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the ALJ properly determined that plaintiff's work as a teacher's aide constituted substantial gainful activity rather than work performed under special conditions.
  2. Whether the ALJ properly evaluated the persuasiveness of the medical opinions concerning plaintiff's absenteeism, time off task, concentration, persistence, and pace.
  3. Whether the residual functional capacity determination was supported by substantial evidence.

Holdings

  1. The ALJ's finding that plaintiff's teacher's-aide work constituted substantial gainful activity was supported by substantial evidence. Plaintiff did not establish that the work was performed under special conditions within the meaning of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1573(c).
  2. The ALJ's persuasiveness analysis was supported by substantial evidence. The ALJ reasonably declined to adopt opinions predicting disabling absenteeism and time off task because those conclusions were unsupported by documented observations or formal testing, inconsistent with treatment records and other evidence, and in some instances internally inconsistent with the providers' own assessments.
  3. The RFC was supported by substantial evidence, and no additional limitations for off-task time or absenteeism were required.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…