Cluster 3577

See Salmini v. Comm’r of Social Sec., 371 F. Appx. 109, 114 (2d Cir. 2010) (“Because we find no error in the ALJ’s RFC assessment, we likewise conclude that the ALJ did not err in posing a hypothetical question to the vocational expert that was based on that assessment.”).

Sec., 371 F. App’x 109, 114 (2d Cir. 2010) (“Because we find no error in the ALJ’s RFC assessment, we likewise conclude that the ALJ did not err in posing a hypothetical question to the vocational expert that was based on that assessment.”).

See also Salmini v. Commissioner, 371 F. App’x 109, 112-13 (2d Cir. 2010)(“although the ALJ might have been more specific in detailing the reasons for” his findings, “other portions of the ALJ’s detailed decision . . . demonstrate that substantial evidence supports this part of the ALJ’s determination”).

Sec., 371 F. App’x 109, 114 (2d Cir. 2010) (“Because we find no error in the ALJ’s RFC assessment, we likewise conclude that the ALJ did not err in posing a hypothetical question to the vocational expert that was based on that assessment.”).

See Regan v. Kijakazi, 2022 U.S. Dist. 179389 at *17-*18 (S.D.N.Y. 2022)(ALJ did not commit reversible error despite failure to explicitly discuss supportability and consistency, where ALJ discussed the medical opinions of record, and elsewhere described evidence “inconsistent” with or “unsupported” by those opinions, thus “implicitly” applying the consistency and supportability factors).See also Salmini v. Commissioner, 371 F. App’x 109, 112-13 (2d Cir. 2010)(“although the …

Sa/mini, 371 F. App’x at 112-13 (“the absence of an express rationale for an ALJ’s conclusions does not prevent us from upholding them so long as we are able to look to other portions of the ALJ’s decision and to clearly credible evidence in finding that his determination was supported by substantial evidence.”).

Sec., 371 F. App'x 109, 114 (2d Cir. 2010) (“Because we find no error in the ALJ's RFC assessment, we likewise conclude that the ALJ did not err in posing a hypothetical question to the vocational expert that was based on that assessment.”).

Sec., 371 F. App’x 109, 114 (2d Cir. 2010) (“Because we find no error in the ALJ’s RFC assessment, we likewise conclude that the ALJ did not err in posing a hypothetical question to the vocational expert that was based on that assessment.”).

Sec., 371 F. App’x 109, 112-13 (2d Cir. Mar. 25, 2010) (“Although we have cautioned that an ALJ should set forth a sufficient rationale in support of his decision to find or not to find a listed impairment, the absence of an express rationale for an ALJ’s conclusions does not prevent us from upholding them so long as we are able to look to other portions of the ALJ’s decision and to clearly credible evidence in finding that his determination was supported by substantial evid…

Sec., 371 F. App’x 109, 113 (2d Cir. 2010) (summary order) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Sec., 371 F. App’x 109, 113 (2d Cir. 2010) (summary order) (internal quotations and citations omitted). iii.

Sec., 371 F. App’x 109, 112-13 (2d Cir. 2010) (Court can look to other parts of an ALJ’s decision in concluding that individual findings are supported); see also, e.g., Decker v. Astrue, 2013 WL 4804197 , at *1, *5 (S.D.N.Y.

Sec., 371 F. App’x 109, 112-13 (2d Cir. Mar. 25, 2010) (no error in crediting claimant's testimony). c.

Salmini v. Commissioner of Social Security, 371 F. App'x 109, 112 (2d Cir. 2010).

Sec., 371 F. App’x 109, 112 (2d Cir. 2010) (finding that the plaintiff failed to offer evidence satisfying the Listing criteria).

Sec., 371 F. App’x 109, 112 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting Berry v. Schweiker, 675 F.2d 464, 469 (2d Cir. 1982)).

Sec., 371 F. App’x 109, 112 (2d Cir. 2010) (Summary Order) (citing Berry v. Schweiker, 675 F.2d 464, 469 (2d Cir. 1982)).

Sec., 371 F. App’x 109, 114 (2d Cir. 2010) (court found that ALJ properly posed hypothetical question to the VE when that hypothetical was based on ALJ’s correct RFC assessment); Dumas v. Schweiker, 712 F.2d 1545, 1554 (2d Cir. 1983)); see also Mancuso v. Astrue, 361 F. App’x. 176, 179 (2d Cir. 2010) (the Commissioner may rely on a vocational expert’s testimony concerning the availability of jobs suited to a hypothetical individual’s capabilities so long as the hypothetical …

Sec., 371 F. App’x 109, 112-13 (2d Cir. 2010)).

Sec., 371 F. App’x 109, 112 (2d Cir. 2010) (broad range of activities of daily living supported ALJ’s finding that claimant did not meet a Listing); Cichocki, 729 F.3d at 178 (ALJ properly relied on claimant’s statements about her daily activities, indicating “that she performed numerous daily tasks, such as walking her dogs and cleaning her house,” in concluding that Plaintiff could perform light work and therefore was not disabled); Poupore v. Astrue, 566 F.3d 303, 307 (2d…

Sec., 371 F. App'x 109, 112-13 (2d.

Sec., 371 F. App’x 109, 112-13 (2d Cir. 2010) (“[A]lthough the ALJ might have been more specific in detailing the reasons for concluding that plaintiff’s condition did not satisfy a listed impairment, other portions of the ALJ’s detailed decision, along with plaintiff’s own testimony, demonstrate that substantial evidence supports this part of the ALJ’s determination.”) (citation omitted).

This case thus is not one where the Court, despite the “absence of an express rationale for [the] ALJ’s conclusions,” can “look to other portions of the ALJ’s decision and to clearly credible evidence” to find “that [their] determination was supported by substantial evidence.” Salmini v. Commissioner of Social Security, 371 F. App’x 109, 112 (2d Cir. 2010) (cited in Def.

Sec., 371 F. App’x 109, 112 (2d Cir. 2010)).

Sec., 371 F. App'x 109, 112 (2d Cir. 2010) (summary order)).

Sec., 371 F. App’x 109, 114 (2d Cir. 2010) (summary order) (citation omitted).

Sec., 371 F. App’x 109, 114 (2d Cir. 2010) (citing Dumas v. Schweiker, 712 F.2d 1545 , 1553–54 (2d Cir. 1983)).

Sec., 371 F. App’x 109, 112 (2d Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Sec., 371 Fed.

Sec., 371 F. App’x 109, 112 (2d Cir. 2010); Mongeur, 722 F.2d at 1040 ; Pullins v. Comm’r of Soc.

Salmini v. Commissioner of Social Security, 371 F. App’x 109, 112-13 (2d Cir. 2010); accord Berry, 675 F.2d at 469 (affirming an ALJ’s determination that the claimant did not meet Listing 1.04 [the predecessor of 1.15], and explaining that “in spite of the ALJ’s failure to explain his rejection of the claimed listed impairments, [the court was] able to look to other portions of the ALJ’s decision and to clearly credible evidence in finding that his determination was supporte…

Sec., 371 F. App’x 109, 112-13 (2d Cir. 2010) (“. . . the absence of an express rationale for an ALJ’s conclusions does not prevent us from upholding them so long as we are ‘able to look to other portions of the ALJ’s decision and to clearly credible evidence in finding that his determination was supported by substantial evidence.’”) (quoting Berry, 675 F.2d at 469 ); Darrell D. v. Comm’r of Soc.

Sec., 371 F. App’x 109, 112-13 (2d Cir. 2010) (noting that “although the ALJ might have been more specific in detailing the reasons for” his conclusions, “other portions of the ALJ’s detailed decision…demonstrate that substantial evidence supports this part of the ALJ’s determination”); Andrea G. v. Comm'r of Soc.

Sec., 371 F. App'x 109, 114 (2d Cir. 2010) (summary order) (citation omitted).

Sec., 371 F. App’x 109, 112-13 (2d Cir. 2010) (noting that “although the ALJ might have been more specific in detailing the reasons for’ his conclusions, “other portions of the ALJ’s detailed decision...demonstrate that substantial evidence supports this part of the ALU’s determination”).

Sec., 371 F. App’x 109, 112-13 (2d Cir. 2010) (The absence of an express rationale for an ALJ’s conclusions does not prevent [the court] from upholding them so long as [the court is] able to look to other portions of the ALJ’s decision and to clearly credible evidence in finding that his determination was supported by substantial evidence.”).

Sec., 371 F. App’x 109, 112 (2d Cir. 2010) (summary order) (quoting Berry v. Schweiker, 675 F.2d 464, 469 (2d Cir. 1982)); Polynice, 2013 WL 6086650 , at *7 n.6, 2013 U.S. Dist.

Sec., 371 F. App’x 109, 112 (2d Cir. 2010) (‘substantial evidence support[ed] . . . the ALJ’s determination,” even though “the ALJ might have been more specific in detailing the reasons [for the decision]”).

Sec., 371 F. App’x 109, 114 (2d Cir. 2010) (court found that ALJ properly posed hypothetical question to the vocational expert when that hypothetical was based on ALJ’s correct RFC assessment); Dumas v. Schweiker, 712 F.2d 1545, 1554 (2d Cir. 1983) (same).

Sec., 371 F. App’x 109, 112 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting Berry, 675 F.2d at 469 ) (“Although we have cautioned that an ALJ ‘should set forth a sufficient rationale in support of his decision to find or not to find a listed impairment,’ the absence of an express rationale for an ALJ’s conclusions does not prevent us from upholding them so long as we are ‘able to look to other portions of the ALJ’s decision and to clearly credible evidence in finding that his determination was supp…

Sec., 371 F. App’x 109, 111 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting Rosa v. Callahan, 168 F. 3d 72, 77 (2d Cir. 1999)); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 (a)(4).

Sec., 371 F. App’x 109, 112 (2d Cir. 2010) (finding that although decision did not detail why plaintiff’s cardiac condition failed to meet a listing, it was supported by substantial evidence including plaintiff’s testimony that he engaged in “a broad range of activities on a daily or occasional basis”).

Sec., 371 F. App’x 109, 112-13 (2d Cir. 2010) (courts may look to the ALJ’s discussion at other steps to determine whether substantial evidence supports the decision).

Sec., 371 F. App’x 109, 112-13 (2d Cir 2010) (summary order).

Sec., 371 F. App’x 109, 113 (2d Cir. 2010) (summary order) (“Although plaintiff points to a handful of purported inaccuracies in the ALJ’s description of plaintiff’s activities, none of these inaccuracies cut against, or have any bearing on, the ALJ’s ultimate conclusion with respect to plaintiff’s credibility.”).

Sec., 371 F. App’x 109, 112 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting Berry v. Schweiker, 675 F.2d 464, 469 (2d Cir. 1982)).

Sec., 371 F. App’x 109, 112-13 (2d Cir. 2010) (summary order); Gonzalez v. Colvin, 2016 WL 5477591 , at *13 (E.D.N.Y.

Sec., 371 F. App’x 109, 114 (2d Cir. 2010) (court found that ALJ properly posed hypothetical question to the VE when that hypothetical was based on ALJ’s correct RFC assessment); Dumas v. Schweiker, 712 F.2d 1545, 1554 (2d Cir. 1983)).

Sec., 371 F. App’x 109, 112 (2d Cir. 2010).

Sec., 371 F. App'x 109, 112-113 (2d Cir. 2010).