Wells v. Commissioner of Social Security et al
Filing
22
OPINION AND ORDER rejecting 20 Report and Recommendations; affirming the Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security as to the adequacy of the articulation by the Appeals Council. The matter is recommitted to the magistrate judge for a Report and Recommendation on the other issues raised by plaintiff. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 9/18/2013. (RKR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
STACY M. WELLS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Case No.
2:12-cv-91-FtM-29DNF
CAROLYN
W.
COLVIN,
Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
___________________________________
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on consideration of a Report
and
Recommendation
recommending
that
(Doc.
the
#20),
filed
Commissioner’s
on
August
decision
security disability benefits be reversed.
to
20,
deny
2013,
social
The Commissioner filed
Objections (Doc. #21) on August 30, 2013.
I.
The Court reviews the Commissioner’s decision to determine if
it is supported by substantial evidence and based upon proper legal
standards.
Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1158
(11th Cir. 2004) (citing Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1439
(11th Cir. 1997)).
Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla
but less than a preponderance, and is such relevant evidence as a
reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005) (citing
Crawford, 363 F.3d at 1158-59). Even if the evidence preponderates
against the Commissioner’s findings, the Court must affirm if the
decision reached is supported by substantial evidence.
Crawford,
363 F.3d at 1158-59 (citing Martin v. Sullivan, 894 F.2d 1520, 1529
(11th Cir. 1990)).
The Court does not decide facts anew, make
credibility judgments, reweigh the evidence, or substitute its
judgment for that of the Commissioner.
Moore, 405 F.3d at 1211
(citing Bloodsworth v. Heckler, 703 F.2d 1233, 1239 (11th Cir.
1983)); Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206, 1210 (11th Cir. 2005)
(citing Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1240 n.8 (11th Cir.
2004)).
The Court reviews the Commissioner’s conclusions of law
under a de novo standard of review.
Ingram v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.
Admin., 496 F.3d 1253, 1260 (11th Cir. 2007) (citing Martin, 894
F.2d at 1529).
II.
Plaintiff
raised
eight
issues
in
her
appeal
Commissioner’s adverse decision to the district court.
of
the
The Report
and Recommendation found for plaintiff on one issue, finding it
unnecessary to resolve the other issues in light of the recommended
remand. Specifically, the Report and Recommendation found that the
Appeals Council failed to evaluate evidence submitted to it after
the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) decision, thus requiring a
remand to the Commissioner.
For the reasons set forth below, the
Report and Recommendation is rejected.
-2-
While the Report and Recommendation found that the Appeals
Council “failed to evaluate new evidence submitted to it,” (Doc.
#20, p. 19), the record reflects the contrary.
The Notice of
Appeals Council Action (Tr. 1-4) clearly states that it “considered
. . . the additional evidence listed on the enclosed Order of
Appeals
Council.”
(Tr.
1.)
The
Court
finds
no
meaningful
distinction in this context between “evaluate” and “consider”. The
actual
issue
is
not
whether
the
Appeals
Council
evaluated/considered the new evidence, which it did, but whether
the Appeals Council articulated its evaluation/consideration of the
new evidence, which it did not.
The legal issue is whether the
Appeals Council, when it considers new evidence but denies review,
must further articulate its findings and rational.
The Court
answers this question in the negative.
Ingram v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 496 F.3d 1253, involved
similar treatment by the Appeals Council.
The Appeals Council
stated it considered the new evidence, and made it part of the
record on appeal, but denied review because the new information did
not provide a basis for changing the decision of the ALJ.
1259.
Id. at
Ingram did not find fault with the failure of the Appeals
Council to articulate its evaluation, but simply held that when a
claimant properly presents new evidence to the Appeals Council
which is considered, but the Appeals Council denies review, “a
reviewing court must consider whether that new evidence renders the
-3-
denial of benefits erroneous.”
district
court
to
determine
Id. at 1262.
whether
the
This requires a
decision
of
the
Commissioner is supported by substantial evidence on the record as
a whole, including the new material submitted to the Appeals
Council.
Id. at 1266.
The Court finds neither Flowers v. Comm’r
of Soc. Sec., 441 F. App’x 735, 745-47 (11th Cir. 2011), nor Bowden
v. Comm’r, No. 6:11-cv-620-Orl-GJK, 2012 WL 2179119 (M.D. Fla. June
13, 2012), persuasive in light of the other Eleventh Circuit cases
to the contrary cited by the Commissioner.
(Doc. #21, p. 3.)
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
1.
The Report and Recommendation (Doc. #20) is REJECTED.
2.
The Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is
AFFIRMED as to the adequacy of the articulation by the Appeals
Council.
3.
The matter is RECOMMITTED to the magistrate judge for a
Report and Recommendation on the other issues raised by plaintiff.
DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this
September, 2013.
Copies:
Hon. Douglas N. Frazier
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Counsel of Record
-4-
18th
day of
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?