Arrington v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
23
OPINION AND ORDER accepting and adopting 22 Report and Recommendations; reversing and remanding Decision of the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four as set forth in Opinion and Order. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close the file. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 3/11/2014. (RKR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
BART ARRINGTON, as surviving
spouse of Roberta Allene
Arrington,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No: 2:12-cv-507-FtM-29DNF
COMMISSIONER
SECURITY,
OF
SOCIAL
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
This
matter
is
before
the
Court
on
consideration
of
Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier’s Report and Recommendation
(Doc. #22), filed on February 11, 2014, recommending that the
Commissioner’s
benefits
be
decision
reversed
Commissioner.
to
and
deny
remanded
social
with
security
disability
instructions
to
the
No objections have been filed, and the time to do
so has expired.
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
evidence.
the
decision
Crawford,
reached
363
F.3d
is
at
supported
1158-59
by
substantial
(citing
Sullivan, 894 F.2d 1520, 1529 (11th Cir. 1990)).
Martin
v.
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.
Comm’r
of
Soc.
Sec.
Admin.,
496
F.3d
1253,
1260
Ingram v.
(11th
Cir.
2007)(citing Martin, 894 F.2d at 1529).
The magistrate judge found that the Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ) erred in (1) failing to develop the record by obtaining a
medical expert or explaining why a medical expert was no longer
necessary to understand the medical records; and (2) discounting
Dr. Levy’s medical opinion without first obtaining further medical
information from a medical expert or contacting Dr. Levy to obtain
a better explanation of his medical findings and how claimant’s
old medical records supported Dr. Levy’s findings, and that (3)
the Appeals Council erred in failing to review the case.
- 2 -
After
an independent review, the Court agrees with the findings and
recommendations in the Report and Recommendation.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
1.
The Report and Recommendation (Doc. #22) is accepted and
adopted by the Court.
2.
The Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is
reversed and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner of Social
Security pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) so that
the Commissioner can develop the record by obtaining a medical
expert or explaining why a medical expert was no longer necessary
to understand the medical records and to consider all of the
evidence, including the medical records and opinion submitted by
Dr. Levy.
3.
The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly
and close the file.
DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this
of March, 2014.
Copies:
Hon. Douglas N. Frazier
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Counsel of Record
- 3 -
11th
day
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?