West v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 28

ORDER: Plaintiff Debra Marr West's objection to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 26 ) is OVERRULED. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 25 ) is ADOPTED. The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. This action is DISMISSED. The Cle rk is direct to enter judgment in favor of Defendant Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, consistent with 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3). Once judgment is entered, the Clerk shall CLOSE this case. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 2/7/2017. (DRW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
DEBRA MARR WEST,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:15-cv-2684-T-33AAS

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social
Security,
Defendant.
______________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of
United States Magistrate Judge Amanda Arnold Sansone’s Report
and Recommendation (Doc. # 25), entered on January 5, 2017,
recommending the decision of Defendant Nancy A. Berryhill1,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security, be affirmed and the
present action dismissed. Plaintiff Debra Marr West filed an
objection on January 19, 2017. (Doc. # 26). The Commissioner
filed a response to West’s objection on February 3, 2017.
(Doc. # 27). For the reasons below, West’s objection is
overruled.

1

Furthermore,

Judge

Sansone’s

Between the time this suit was filed
Order, Berryhill replaced Carolyn W.
Commissioner.
As
such,
Berryhill
substituted as a party.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

Report

and

and entry of this
Colvin as Acting
is
“automatically
25(d).

Recommendation is adopted. The decision of the Commissioner
is affirmed and this action is dismissed.
Discussion
West filed her application for disability insurance
benefits and supplemental security income on September 8,
2011. (Doc. # 15-2 at 24). In her application, West stated
the

date

of

onset

as

August

7,

2010.

(Id.).

After

two

hearings, the administrative law judge issued a decision on
August 7, 2014, denying West’s applications. (Id. at 21-44).
West timely appealed. (Id. at 19-20). The Appeals Counsel
adopted most of the administrative law judge’s findings,
disagreeing only with the administrative law judge’s finding
as to West’s date last insured and the reason for the second
hearing, and affirmed the denial of benefits. (Id. at 2-10).
West subsequently brought this action on November 16,
2015, seeking to have the Commissioner’s decision set aside.
(Doc. # 1). Pursuant to Local Rule 6.01(c)(21), the action
was referred to Judge Sansone for a Report and Recommendation.
After the parties filed their respective briefs (Doc. ## 22,
24), Judge Sansone entered her Report and Recommendation on
January 5, 2017, which recommends that the decision of the
Commissioner be affirmed. (Doc. # 25). West filed a timely
objection and the Commissioner responded. (Doc. ## 26, 27).

2

After conducting a careful and complete review of the
findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept,
reject

or

modify

Recommendation.

the

28

magistrate

U.S.C.

§

judge’s

636(b)(1);

Report

and

Williams

v.

Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982). In the absence of
specific objections, there is no requirement that a district
judge review factual findings de novo, Garvey v. Vaughn, 993
F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993), and the court may accept,
reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and
recommendations.

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The district

judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence
of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d
603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Castro Bobadilla v. Reno, 826 F.
Supp. 1428, 1431-32 (S.D. Fla. 1993), aff’d, 28 F.3d 116 (11th
Cir. 1994) (Table).
The Court has conducted a careful and complete review of
the

findings,

conclusions,

and

recommendations,

and

has

reviewed matters of law de novo. The Report and Recommendation
provides a thorough and fair review of the administrative
record. Moreover, the Report and Recommendation cogently
explains why the Commissioner’s decision should be affirmed.
As such, the Court accepts the factual findings and legal
conclusions of Judge Sansone and adopts her Recommendation.

3

While the Court finds no reason to further expound on
the reasons articulated by Judge Sansone, the Court does take
this

opportunity

to

address

West’s

primary

contention;

namely, that Judge Sansone impermissibly engaged in post hoc
rationalization. (Doc. # 26 at 1-2). Relying on Owens v.
Heckler, 748 F.2d 1511, 1516 (11th Cir. 1984), for the broad
proposition that a court may not affirm an administrative
decision “simply because some rationale might have supported
the ALJ’s conclusion,” West argues Judge Sansone erred by
“bas[ing] her conclusion on post hoc rationalizations to
compensate for the ALJ’s failure to properly consider the
Plaintiff’s

obesity”

and

“rel[ying]

on

post

hoc

rationalization in finding that the ‘ALJ . . . articulated
substantial

evidence

for

determining

that

Dr.

Mahar’s

opinions are inconsistent with the record and giving his
opinions little weight.’” (Doc. # 26 at 1-2). West’s reliance
on Owens, however, is misplaced.
In Owens a recipient of supplemental security income had
her benefits terminated after a routine review of her case
revealed the existence of a bank account held jointly by the
recipient and her daughter. 748 F.2d at 1513. At a hearing
before an administrative law judge, the recipient argued the
money

in

the

jointly-held

account

4

should

not

have

been

attributed to her because the money had never been available
for her use and, in the alternative, repayment should be
waived.

Id.

arguments

The

and

administrative

entered

a

law

decision

judge

demanding

rejected

both

repayment

of

benefits the recipient had collected. Id.
The recipient appealed to the Appeals Council, arguing
the administrative law judge applied the wrong standard,
i.e., the “irrebuttable presumption standard” rather than
looking at the intent of the parties when evaluating whether
a claimant should be held to have access to funds in a joint
bank account. Id. at 1513-14. In its decision, the Appeals
Council “reaffirmed its commitment to the policy of looking
at the intent of the parties.” Id. at 1514. The Appeals
Council also went on to state, “‘[i]t appear[ed] that the
administrative law judge considered the Council’s policy on
joint bank accounts . . .’” and “inferred that the ALJ had
simply found that the claimant’s testimony did not constitute
sufficiently ‘clear and convincing evidence’ to rebut the
presumption of ownership.” Id. The Appeals Council affirmed
on the aforesaid grounds.
Subsequent

thereto,

the

recipient

sought

review

in

district court. Id. at 1513. The district court affirmed the
decision of the Commissioner and the recipient appealed to

5

the Eleventh Circuit. Id. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit was
explicit that its “evaluation center[ed] on the adequacy of
the opinion rendered by the ALJ.” Id. at 1514. The court
further

noted

that

the

administrative

law

judge’s

articulation of the standard he applied was “ambiguous at
best” and that the court “simply [could not] tell” what
standard was applied. Id. at 1515. “Even more serious was the
ALJ’s failure to make any finding at all on the credibility
of the testimony relating to” the issue of testimony given
during the hearing. Id. Ultimately, the Eleventh Circuit
reversed and remanded with instructions to the district court
to remand the case to the agency for further findings because
“the ALJ did not provide [the court] with the information
essential to” evaluating the decision. Id. at 1516.
Owens, however, is readily distinguishable from the case
at hand. Here, the record reveals that Judge Sansone merely
summarized the reasons articulated by the administrative law
judge himself for the decision to deny benefits. This is not
an instance where, as in Owens, the administrative law judge
failed to “pass on the credibility of the claimant” or to
“state with at least some measure of clarity the grounds for
his decision,” Id. Rather, as demonstrated by the record, the
administrative law judge provided a thorough explanation for

6

his credibility determination and determination as to how
much weight to assign the treating physician’s statements.
That Judge Sansone highlighted some of the administrative law
judge’s reasons for recommending that the denial-of-benefits
decision

be

affirmed

is

not

tantamount

to

post

hoc

rationalization.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1)

Plaintiff Debra Marr West’s objection to the Report
and Recommendation (Doc. # 26) is OVERRULED.

(2)

The Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 25) is ADOPTED.

(3)

The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED.

(4)

This action is DISMISSED.

(5)

The Clerk is direct to enter judgment in favor of
Defendant Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of
Social Security, consistent with 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g),
1383(c)(3).

(6)

Once judgment is entered, the Clerk shall CLOSE this
case.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this

7th day of February, 2017.

7

8