CRUMPTON v. COLVIN

Filing 17

ORDER ADOPTING 14 Report and Recommendations. The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. Ordered by U.S. District Judge MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 9/16/2014. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
JOSHUA AARON CRUMPTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner
of Social Security Administration,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:13-CV-166 (MTT)

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Charles H. Weigle. (Doc. 14). The Magistrate Judge, having
reviewed the case, recommends affirming the decision of the Commissioner because
the Plaintiff’s asserted sole ground for relief does not warrant reversal. Specifically, the
Magistrate Judge recommends affirming the Commissioner’s decision because the
record as a whole indicates the Commissioner’s decision to deny the Plaintiff’s
application for benefits was based on proper legal standards and supported by
substantial evidence. Further, the ALJ committed harmless error in failing to weigh on
the record the findings of the consultative medical examiner, Dr. William Hatchings.
The Plaintiff has objected to the Recommendation. (Doc. 15). Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has considered the Plaintiff’s objections and has made a
de novo determination of the portions of the Recommendation to which the Plaintiff
objects. Specifically, the Plaintiff contends the Magistrate Judge incorrectly determined
that the Commissioner’s failure to assign any weight to the opinion of Dr. Hutchings was

harmless error. Citing Markell v. Astrue, 2007 WL 4482245 (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff
urges the Court to adopt the proposition that a “consultative evaluator must be
considered and given proper weight,” and failure to do so functionally amounts to a per
se harmful error.
However, Markell more accurately stands for the proposition that harmful error
may result if the ALJ does not expressly address the conclusions of a non-treating,
consultative examining physician.1 Here, unlike in Markell, the Magistrate Judge could
determine from the record whether the ALJ’s conclusions were rational and supported
by substantial evidence, even without express, articulated reasons why Dr. Hutching’s
conclusions were not adopted. Cf. Winschel v. Commissioner of Social Sec., 631 F.3d
1176, 1179 (11th Cir. 2011) (remanding to the ALJ because the ALJ’s failure to
expressly consider the conclusions of both the treating physician and consultative
examiner prohibited the reviewing court from determining based on that particular
record whether substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s decision). Therefore, the
Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the ALJ’s failure to weigh the consultative
examiner’s opinion was harmless error.
Accordingly, the Court accepts and adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. The Recommendation is ADOPTED and

1

Because both the Magistrate Judge and the Plaintiff cite Markell as support, the Court further discusses
the decision here. In Markell, the ALJ gave significant weight to two non-examining, reviewing doctors
and failed to address the weight given to the conclusions of an examining, consultative examiner,
contrary to regulation and Eleventh Circuit precedent. 2007 WL at *4 (“In principle, as an examining
doctor, the testimony of Dr. Kalin was entitled to more weight than that of the non-examining doctors.
(See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(1), 416.927(d)(1)). At a minimum, the ALJ was obliged to explain this
conclusion.”) (internal citation omitted)); see also Lamb v. Bowen, 847 F.2d 698, 703 (11th Cir. 1988).
This was reversible error because without the ALJ’s addressing Dr. Kalin’s report and reasons for giving it
less weight, the Magistrate Judge could not determine from the record whether there was substantial
evidence to support the ALJ’s decision. Id. Markell, however, neither stands for the proposition nor
persuades this Court that failure to address the conclusions of a non-treating, examining physician is per
se harmful error.
-2-

made the Order of this Court. Therefore, the decision of the Commissioner is
AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED, this 16th day of September, 2014.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

-3-