Carton v. Colvin

Filing 15

RULING (see attached) ADOPTING the 14 Recommended Ruling of Magistrate Judge Joan G. Margolis. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's 12 Motion to Amend/Correct is GRANTED; the Plaintiff's 11 Motion to Reverse the Decision o f the Commissioner is GRANTED; and the Defendant's 13 Motion to Affirm the Decision of the Commissioner is DENIED. The case is hereby REMANDED to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with the adopted 14 Recommended Ruling. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the file. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on January 9, 2014. (Dorais, L.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

RAYMOND CARTON,
Plaintiff,

3:13 - CV- 379 (CSH)

v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,

JANUARY 9, 2014

Defendant.

RULING ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDED RULING
HAIGHT, Senior District Judge:
This action, filed under §§ 205(g) and 1631(c)(3) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.
§§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3), as amended, sought review of a final decision by the Commissioner of
Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying Plaintiff Raymond Carton disability insurance benefits
and supplemental security income benefits. Plaintiff maintains that he has been disabled since
January 1, 2010, due to mental disorders and emotional problems and is unable to pursue gainful
employment.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), this Court designated Magistrate Judge Joan G.
Margolis to conduct any necessary hearing, review the evidence, and submit to this Court
recommendations for disposition of the case. On December 9, 2013, Magistrate Judge Margolis
filed and submitted to this Court her Recommended Ruling [Doc. 14], concluding that the decision
of the Commissioner was based on an improper application of the relevant law and was thus not
1

supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, she recommended that the decision be reversed and
the case remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings. To date, the Commissioner has
filed no objection to the Recommended Ruling and the time to object has expired, 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b).1
The Court has carefully reviewed the Recommended Ruling [Doc. 14], the findings of fact
and law contained therein, and the parties' briefed arguments in support of their underlying motions.2
The Court concludes that it agrees with the Recommended Ruling. Specifically, the Court concurs
with Magistrate Judge Margolis’s finding that, in reaching her decision, Administrative Law Judge
("ALJ") Amita B. Tracy failed to properly apply the governing "treating physician" rule, which
affords "controlling weight" to the opinion of the physician who provided primary treatment to the
claimant if that opinion is "well supported by medical findings and not inconsistent with other
substantial evidence," Rosa v. Callahan, 168 F.3d 72, 78-79 (2d Cir. 1999). See also Clark v.
Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 143 F.3d 115, 118 (2d Cir.1998); Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 128 (2d Cir.
2008); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2).
In particular, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Margolis that "[i]n light of the
extensive consistent treatment records and the half dozen treating source statements, the ALJ did not
properly apply the treating physician rule when she assigned little weight to the treating source

1

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), "[w]ithin fourteen days after being served with a copy,
any party may serve and file written objections to [the magistrate judge's] proposed findings and
recommendations as provided by rules of court." Because the Recommended Ruling was filed on
December 9, 2013, the period to object expired on December 23, 2013.
2

Moreover, the Court has reviewed the additional authority Plaintiff presented in support
of his "Motion to Reverse the Decision of the Commissioner" [Doc. 11], and ADOPTS Magistrate
Judge Margolis's ruling GRANTING Plaintiff's "Motion to Amend" [Doc. 12] (i.e., supplement) his
motion to reverse with said authority. See Doc. 14, p. 2 n.4.
2

opinions in favor of the duplicative non-examining sources' opinions that lack support in the
record." Doc. 14, p. 28. Rejection of the treating source's opinions resulted in findings that were
unsupported by, and actually conflicted with, substantial evidence in the record. See, e.g., id., p.
28-29 (ALJ erred in emphasizing Plaintiff's return to school over treating physician's opinions where
evidence in record revealed that Plaintiff ultimately withdrew from school because he felt
overwhelmed by his classes).3
A federal court may properly set aside the ALJ's decision "where it is based upon legal error
or is not supported by substantial evidence." Balsamo v. Chater, 142 F.3d 75, 79 (2d Cir. 1998)
(citing Berry v. Schweiker, 675 F.2d 464, 467 (2d Cir. 1982)(per curiam)). Therefore, the ALJ's
decision, as adopted by the Commissioner, denying Plaintiff disability insurance benefits and
supplemental security income benefits, will be reversed.
In sum, concurring with the Magistrate Judge's conclusions, based on the administrative
record, and absent objection by Defendant within the requisite 14-day period following entry of the
Magistrate Judge's "proposed findings and recommendations," 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the Court hereby
ADOPTS the Recommended Ruling [Doc. 14].4 Accordingly, Plaintiff's "Motion to Reverse the

3

In making her erroneous findings, ALJ Tracy failed to address key evidence in the
record, such as Plaintiff's withdrawal from his classes. Doc. 14, p. 28-29. In so doing, she was likely
unable to comprehensively set forth her reasons for "assign[ing] little weight to the treating source
opinions in favor of the . . . duplicative non-examining source statements," Doc. 14, p. 28. See
Burgess, 537 F.3d at 129 ("After considering [all relevant] factors, the ALJ must 'comprehensively
set forth [his] reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician's opinion.'") (quoting Halloran
v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 33 (2d Cir. 2004)). See also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (stating that the
agency "will always give good reasons in [its] notice of determination or decision for the weight [it]
give[s] [the claimant's] treating source's opinion") (emphasis added).
4

Failure to file a timely objection to a magistrate judge's recommended ruling may
preclude further appeal to the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. Small v. Sec'y of
Health and Human Servs., 892 F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989) (per curiam). Accord Graham v. City of
3

Decision of the Commissioner" [Doc. 11] is GRANTED; and Defendant's "Motion for An Order
Affirming the Commissioner's Decision" [Doc. 13] is DENIED. The case is hereby REMANDED
to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with the adopted Recommended Ruling. The
Clerk of the Court is directed to close the file.
It is SO ORDERED.
Dated: New Haven, Connecticut
January 9, 2014
/s/Charles S. Haight, Jr.
CHARLES S. HAIGHT, JR.
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

New York, 443 F. App'x 657, 658 (2d Cir. 2011) ("It is the rule in this Circuit that a party's 'failure
to object timely to a magistrate's report operates as a waiver of any further judicial review of the
magistrate's decision.'") (quoting Small, 892 F.2d at 16).
4