. R&R 12; see McGinley v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:18-CV-129-TPK, 2019 WL 2089832, at *5 (W.D.N.Y. May 13, 2019) (where record supported that “Plaintiff's headaches were adequately controlled to the point that they did not interfere with his ability to work,” ALJ reasonably found no significant limitations flowing from migraines).
This was sufficient to sustain the ALJ's conclusion under the deferential standard of review applicable here. See McGinley v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:18-CV-129-TPK, 2019 WL 2089832, at *5 (W.D.N.Y. May 13, 2019)(“The ALJ both correctly summarized and adequately discussed the treatment records, which are somewhat sparse, and determined, based on that evidence, that Plaintiff's headaches were adequately controlled to the point that they did not interfere with his ability to work, at least beyond those limitations contained in the ALJ's residual functional capacity finding.”);
Of course, the evidence supporting the ALJ's resolution of any conflicts must be substantial, but when a reasonable person could decide the question either way, the Court is not entitled to second-guess the ALJ. See McGinley v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 2019 WL 2089832, at *5 (W.D.N.Y. May 13, 2019), citing Vargas v. Astrue, 2011 WL 2946371, *15 (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2011). Here, there is enough credible evidence in the record from which the ALJ could reasonably have determined that Plaintiff's limitations in these two areas of impairment are no more than moderate.