Jenkins v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
22
ORDER adopting 19 Report and Recommendations, reversing and remanding decision of Commissioner. Signed by Judge Gregory A. Presnell on 10/16/2014. (ED)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
SHARIKA NICOLE JENKINS,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No: 6:13-cv-1583-Orl-31GJK
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
ORDER
On September 17, 2014, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation (Doc.
19) recommending that the decision of the Commissioner be reversed and remanded for further
proceedings. On September 24, 2014, the Commissioner filed an objection (Doc. 20) to the Report
and Recommendation, and on September 30, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a response (Doc. 21) to that
objection.
Upon de novo review of the above, the Court agrees that the decision of the
Commissioner is due to be reversed and remanded.
After the ALJ determined that the Plaintiff was not disabled, the Plaintiff requested review
of the decision and submitted new evidence to the Appeals Council. The Appeals Council denied
review, stating only that the new evidence “does not provide a basis for changing the [ALJ’s]
decision.” The Magistrate Judge found that this denial ran afoul of the requirement, set forth in
Epps v. Harris, 624 F.2d 1267 (5th Cir. 1980), 1 that the Appeals Council explain the basis for its
determination that newly submitted evidence did not merit reversal:
1
In Bonner v. City of Pritchard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981), the Eleventh
Circuit adopted as binding precedent all prior decisions of the former Fifth Circuit.
Although the Appeals Council acknowledged that Epps had submitted new evidence, it did
not adequately evaluate it. Rather, it perfunctorily adhered to the decision of the hearing
examiner. This failure alone makes us unable to hold that the Secretary’s findings are
supported by substantial evidence and requires us to remand this case for a determination
of Epps’ disability eligibility reached on the total record.
Id. at 1273.
The Commissioner offers two primary arguments as to why the Appeals Council’s
perfunctory adherence to the decision of the ALJ in this case does not require a remand. The
Commissioner points to several unpublished Eleventh Circuit decisions in which the court stated
that the Appeals Council is not required to provide a thorough explanation when denying review.
See, e.g., Burgin v. Commissioner of Soc. Sec., 420 Fed.Appx. 901. 903 (11th Cir. 2011)
(unpublished). However, the cases cited by the Commissioner do not address Epps, which remains
good law within this Circuit. The Commissioner also argues that Epps is inapplicable because the
Appeals Council in that case actually affirmed the decision denying eligibility rather than, as here,
denying review of that decision. But the Commissioner offers no explanation as to why the
Appeals Council would be obligated to articulate its reasoning when it affirms the decision of the
ALJ but not when it denies review of that decision. 2 The Commissioner’s other arguments do not
merit discussion. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that:
1.
The Report and Recommendation is CONFIRMED and ADOPTED as part of this Order.
2
The Commissioner appears to suggest that the Appeals Council’s decision is only
reviewable by the District Court if the Appeals Council grants review. This position has been
rejected by the Eleventh Circuit. See Ingram v. Commissioner of Soc. Sec., 496 F.3d 1253, 1262
(11th Cir. 2007) (“The settled law of this Circuit is that a court may review … a denial of review by
the Appeals Council.”)
-2-
2.
The final decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED pursuant to sentence four of Section
405(g).
3.
The case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this Order.
4.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of the Plaintiff, and close the case.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, Orlando, Florida on October 16, 2014.
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Party
-3-
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?