AMOS v. BERRYHILL
Filing
15
MEMORANDUM OPINION adopting 14 Report and Recommendation; granting Plaintiff's 7 Motion for Judgment of Reversal; and denying Defendant's 8 Motion for judgment of Affirmance. Signed by Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson on 7/31/2019. (lckbj2)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
JEROME D. AMOS,
Plaintiff,
v.
ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner
of Social Security,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 17-cv-1707 (KBJ)
MEMORANDUM OPINION ADOPTING
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Jerome Amos applied to the Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant Andrew Saul (“Commissioner” or “Defendant”), for disability insurance
benefits in 2013, claiming that he was disabled due to post-traumatic stress disorder
(“PTSD”), migraine headaches, bilateral hearing loss, sleep apnea, and upper and lower
back pain. (See Admin. R., ECF No. 4-3, at 2.) 1 In May of 2016, an Administrative
Law Judge (“ALJ”) held a hearing on Amos’s application (see Admin. R., ECF No. 4-2,
at 41), and determined that Amos was not disabled under the Social Security Act (see
id. at 35). Amos requested review by the Appeals Council (see Admin. R., ECF No. 44, at 73–74), and the Appeals Council denied his request, making the ALJ’s decision the
agency’s final decision (see Admin. R., ECF No. 4-2, at 2). Amos filed the instant
lawsuit on August 22, 2017, requesting that this Court reverse the ALJ’s denial decision
Page-number citations to the documents that the parties have filed refer to the page numbers that the
Court’s electronic filing system automatically assigns.
1
and award Amos disability insurance benefits, or, in the alternative, remand the case to
the Commissioner for a new administrative hearing. (See Compl., ECF No. 1, at 2.)
On August 25, 2017, this Court referred this matter to a magistrate judge for full
case management. (See Min. Order of Aug. 25, 2017.) On July 13, 2018, Amos filed a
motion asking the Court either to reverse the Commissioner’s decision or to remand this
matter back to the agency for a new hearing, arguing that the ALJ’s decision is not
supported by substantial evidence and that the decision is erroneous as a matter of law.
(See Pl.’s Mem. in Support of Pl.’s Mot. for J. of Reversal, ECF No. 7-1, at 1.)
Subsequently, on August 27, 2018, Defendant filed a motion for judgment of affirmance
of the ALJ’s decision, arguing that “the ALJ applied the correct law and relied on
substantial evidence to find that Plaintiff did not meet the [Social Security] Act’s
definition of disability when the record shows that Plaintiff traveled extensively and
maintained independence.” (Def.’s Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for J. of Affirmance & in
Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for J. of Reversal, ECF No. 8, at 4.)
Before this Court at present is the Report and Recommendation that the assigned
Magistrate Judge, G. Michael Harvey, has filed regarding Amos’s motion for reversal
and Defendant’s motion for affirmance. (See R. & R., ECF No. 14.) 2 The Report and
Recommendation reflects Magistrate Judge Harvey’s opinion that Amos’s motion for
reversal should be granted; Defendant’s motion for affirmance should be denied; and
the case should be remanded to the Commissioner for additional proceedings. (See id.
at 24.) Specifically, Magistrate Judge Harvey finds that the ALJ’s findings regarding
Amos’s residual functional capacity were not supported by substantial evidence,
2
The Report and Recommendation, which is 25 pages long, is attached hereto as Appendix A.
2
because the ALJ failed to address the Department of Veterans Affairs’ Rating Decision
(“VA Rating Decision”) when assessing Amos’s physical and mental ability to perform
work. (See id. at 15.) Magistrate Judge Harvey further finds that the VA Rating
Decision constitutes material evidence regarding Plaintiff’s PTSD (see id.), and that
Social Security Ruling 06-03p required the ALJ to afford the VA Rating Decision some
weight (see id. at 16; see also id. & n.6 (explaining that Social Security Ruling 06-03p
governs Amos’s claim, because it was filed before March 27, 2017)). Finally,
Magistrate Judge Harvey determines that there is no merit to Amos’s contentions that
the ALJ either improperly assessed his migraine headaches or failed to consider
properly Amos’s wife’s testimony. (See id. at 15.)
In addition to articulating these conclusions, Magistrate Judge Harvey’s 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. (See id. at 24.) 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. (See id. at 24–25.) 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. See LCvR 72.3(b). The due date for objections has
passed, and neither party has filed objections.
This Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Harvey’s report and agrees with its
careful and thorough analysis and conclusions. Therefore, the Court will ADOPT the
3
Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reversal will be GRANTED; Defendant’s Motion for Affirmance will be DENIED;
and this matter will be REMANDED to the Commissioner for rehearing.
A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
Ketanji Brown Jackson
DATE: July 31, 2019
KETANJI BROWN JACKSON
United States District Judge
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?