MERIWETHER v. ASTRUE

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM OPINION ADOPTING 11 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Kay, GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART Plaintiff's 6 Motion for Reversal and Defendant's 7 Motion for Judgment of Affirmance, and REMANDING matter to the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. See attached document for details. Signed by Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson on 05/19/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Report and Recommendation) (lckbj1, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
_________________________________
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner )
of Social Security,
)
Defendant.
)
)
_________________________________ )
REGINA MERIWETHER,

Civil Action No. 12-cv-0067 (KBJ)

MEMORANDUM OPINION ADOPTING
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Regina Meriwether (“Plaintiff”) alleges that she suffers from multiple
impairments that have prevented her from engaging relevant work or in any other
substantial gainful activity. (Compl., ECF No. 1, ¶ 5.) She filed applications for Social
Security Disability Insurance Benefits and/or Supplemental Security Income Benefits,
which the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) denied. (Id.
¶ 4.) Plaintiff requested that the SSA reconsider this decision, which it declined to do.
(Id.) Then, Plaintiff requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”),
and following the hearing, the ALJ issued a written opinion denying her request for
benefits. (Id.) Plaintiff persisted, requesting that the Appeals Council review the
ALJ’s decision, and on November 16, 2011, the Appeals Counsel denied her request for
review. Having fully exhausted her administrative remedies, Plaintiff filed the instant
action on January 17, 2012.

On May 30, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for judgment of reversal in which she
argues that the Court should reverse the ALJ’s decision because it is unsupported by
substantial evidence and erroneous as a matter of law. In the alternative, Plaintiff
requests remand to the SSA for a new administrative hearing. (Mot. for J. of Reversal,
ECF No. 6, at 1.) On July 10, 2012, Defendant Commissioner of the SSA filed a
motion for judgment of affirmance, which argues that this Court should affirm the
ALJ’s conclusion that Plaintiff is not entitled to Social Security benefits because the
ALJ properly applied that law and substantial evidence supports his decision. (Mot. for
J. of Affirmance, ECF No. 7, at 1.) On April 4, 2013, the matter was transferred to this
Court’s docket, and on June 7, 2013, this Court referred it to a Magistrate Judge for full
case management. (Minute Order of June 7, 2013.)
Before this Court at present is the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 11)
that the assigned Magistrate Judge, Alan Kay, has filed regarding Plaintiff’s motion for
reversal and Defendant’s motion for judgment of affirmance. The Report and
Recommendation reflects Magistrate Judge Kay’s opinions that while a shortfall in the
record of one month of medical history prior to the onset of Plaintiff’s alleged disability
did not prejudice Plaintiff and that the ALJ did not err in failing to obtain a consultative
examination, the record before the ALJ contained other evidentiary gaps that prejudiced
Plaintiff and the ALJ improperly failed to explain the weight he gave to record evidence
regarding Plaintiff’s concentration abilities. (Id. at 28-27.) As a result, Magistrate
Judge Kay recommends that both motions should be granted in part, and denied in part,
and that this Court should remand the matter to the SSA, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

2

§ 405(g), for further proceedings consistent with the Report and Recommendation. (Id.
at 27-28.)
The Report and Recommendation also advises the parties that either party may
file written objections to the Report and Recommendation, which must include the
portions of the findings and recommendations to which each objection is made and the
basis for each such objection. (Id. at 28.) The Report and Recommendation further
advises the parties that failure to file timely objections may result in waiver of further
review of the matters addressed in the Report and Recommendation. (Id.)
Under this Court’s local rules, any party who objects to a Report and
Recommendation must file a written objection with the Clerk of the Court within 14
days of the party’s receipt of the Report and Recommendation. LCvR 72.3(b). As of
this date—several months after the Report and Recommendation was issued—no
objections have been filed.
This Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Kay’s report and agrees with its
conclusions. Thus, the Court will ADOPT the Report and Recommendation in its
entirety. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reversal will be GRANTED IN PART
AND DENIED IN PART; Defendant’s Motion for Judgment of Affirmance will be
GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, and this matter will be REMANDED,
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), to the Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration for further proceedings consistent with Magistrate Judge Kay’s Report
and Recommendation.

3

A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Ketanji Brown Jackson

DATE: May 19, 2015

KETANJI BROWN JACKSON
United States District Judge

4