[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-329212-105":59,"doc-detail-329212-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","memorandum-and-order-memorandum-and-order-denied-motion-to-reverse-or-remand","MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Memorandum and Order - Denied Motion to Reverse or Remand","","United States District Court for the District of Connecticut issues a memorandum and order regarding Olga Pinsky’s appeal of the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of Title II Disability Insurance Benefits. The court addresses whether the denial was supported by substantial evidence and considers requests to reverse or remand for rehearing. The decision denies Pinsky’s motion to reverse or remand, grants the Commissioner’s motion to affirm, and summarizes extensive medical and procedural history supporting that determination.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/memorandum-and-order-memorandum-and-order-denied-motion-to-reverse-or-remand/329212/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/memorandum-and-order-memorandum-and-order-denied-motion-to-reverse-or-remand/329212.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Pentious","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-21","2026-09-21",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":29},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What benefits did Olga Pinsky apply for, and what did the Commissioner decide?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"Olga Pinsky applied for Title II Disability Insurance Benefits, and the Commissioner denied her application.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"On what grounds did Pinsky appeal the Commissioner’s decision?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"Pinsky asked the Court to reverse because the decision was not supported by substantial evidence, or alternatively to remand for rehearing under 42 U.S.C. Section 405(g).",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"What did the Court decide regarding the motions to reverse or remand?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"The Court denied Pinsky’s motion to reverse or remand, found the Commissioner’s decision supported by substantial evidence, and granted the Commissioner’s motion to affirm.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},329212,1790084503,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":29,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":41,"language":139,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":143,"read_time":144,"preview_page_count":4},1374404730887,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_6f874abed73319feea01a86fa6f0fab8","UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT  \nOLGA PINSKY,  \nPlaintiff,  \nv.  \nNANCY A. BERRYHILL, Commissioner of Social Security,  \nDefendant.  \nNo. 3:17-cv-524 (MPS)  \nMEMORANDUM AND ORDER  \nOlga Pinsky filed this appeal of the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision to deny her application for Title II Disability Insurance Benefits. Under 42 U.S.C. Section 405(g), she asks this Court to reverse the decision of the Commissioner because it was not supported by substantial evidence or, alternatively, to remand for rehearing. (ECF No. 16.) Because I find that Pinsky’s legal arguments lack merit and that the Commissioner’s decision was based on substantial evidence, I deny Pinsky’s motion to reverse or remand and grant the Commissioner’s motion to affirm.  \nI. Background  \nA. Factual Background  \nThe parties stipulate to the following medical chronology. (ECF No. 16-1.) In 2011, Olga Pinsky was 27 years old and had a history of mental health treatment for anxiety and depression.([Id.](Id. at)[ at](Id. at) 1.) On January 13, 2011, she had a comprehensive assessment for mental health at Catholic Charities. ([Id.](Id. at)[ at](Id. at) 1.) She had survived the Chernobyl disaster as a child and had experienced difficulties integrating into life in America. (Id.) She reported sleep disturbance, panic attacks,  \nobsessive thoughts, and compulsive behaviors. (Id.) The intake clinician at Catholic Charities reported that Pinsky was cooperative and that she had coherent thoughts and an intact memory.(Id.)  \nOn April 9, 2012, Pinsky saw Dr. James Sarnelle, a general surgeon, following several weeks of right groin pain. (ECF No. 16-1 at 1.) She stated that the pain had started recently, while she was studying abroad for three weeks in Europe. (Id.) She had a negative computed tomography (CT) scan of her pelvis and abdomen. (Id.) Dr. Sarnelle found that the etiology of Pinsky’s pain was unclear. (Id.)  \nOn October 30, 2012, Pinsky had an MRI of her brain, because she was experiencing dizziness, vertigo, and fever. (ECF No. 16-1 at 1.) The MRI found that there was a single punctate focus of white matter signal abnormality, but no other evidence of abnormality. (Id.) She also hada magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) of her neck, which was normal. (Id.)  \nOn October 31, 2012, Pinsky had a medical appointment with Dr. Eric Kung, at which she complained of headaches and dizziness. She reported debilitating headaches, one to two times per month, that lasted for 24 hours. (ECF No. 16-1 at 2.) On examination, Pinsky was neurologically intact: she had a full gait, intact reflexes, normal sensation, and full muscle strength throughout.(Id.) Pinsky was pleasant, alert, and fully oriented. (Id.) Dr. Kung diagnosed migraine without aura, without mention of intractable migraine, and without mention of status migrainosus. (Id.) He prescribed Amitriptyline and Tizanidine for Pinsky’s headaches. (Id.) Dr. Kung also diagnosed depressive disorder, not elsewhere classified, and Lyme disease. (Id.)  \nOn November 15, 2012, Pinsky had another appointment with Dr. Eric Kung. She described headaches with intense pressure, throbbing, pulsating, and squeezing pain on the level of 8.5, with radiation to the temporal area, with vertigo, nausea, and low-grade fevers. (ECF No.  \n16-1 at 2.) Dr. Kung noted that a November 8, 2012 computed tomography angiography (CTA) of Pinsky’s head showed sinus disease but was otherwise unremarkable. (Id.) An MRI of Pinsky’s cervical region was also normal. (Id.) On examination, Pinsky was neurologically intact. She hada full gait, intact reflexes, normal sensation, and full muscle strength throughout. (Id.) Pinsky was alert and fully oriented. (Id.) Dr. Eric Kung diagnosed migraine without aura, without mention of intractable migraine or of status migrainosus. (Id.) He advised Pinsky to stop Amitriptyline and Tizanidine and recommended a spinal tap for evaluation of chronic fatigue syndrome. (Id.)  \nOn February 27, 2013, D","cbCaiciP8Z08tWVx","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiciP8Z08tWVx","pdf",272591,"English","# Background\n## Factual Background","[{\"question\":\"What benefits did Olga Pinsky apply for, and what did the Commissioner decide?\",\"answer\":\"Olga Pinsky applied for Title II Disability Insurance Benefits, and the Commissioner denied her application.\"},{\"question\":\"On what grounds did Pinsky appeal the Commissioner’s decision?\",\"answer\":\"Pinsky asked the Court to reverse because the decision was not supported by substantial evidence, or alternatively to remand for rehearing under 42 U.S.C. Section 405(g).\"},{\"question\":\"What did the Court decide regarding the motions to reverse or remand?\",\"answer\":\"The Court denied Pinsky’s motion to reverse or remand, found the Commissioner’s decision supported by substantial evidence, and granted the Commissioner’s motion to affirm.\"}]","MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Memorandum and Order - Denied Motion to Reverse or Remand | PDF",1789983102,76]