Durbin v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 15

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 12/22/2014. The Report and Recommendation, d/e 13 is ADOPTED in its entirety. The Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, d/e 8 is GRANTED and Defendants' Motion for Summary Affirmance, d/e 11 is DENIED. The decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (MAS, ilcd)

E-FILED

Monday, 22 December, 2014 04:05:31 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
STEPHEN N. DURBIN,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
)
Commissioner of Social Security, )
)
Defendant.
)

No. 12-CV-03339

OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge:
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (d/e 13)
entered by United States Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins
on June 24, 2014. Judge Schanzle-Haskins recommends that this
Court grant Plaintiff Stephen N. Durbin’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (d/e 8), deny Defendant Commissioner of Social
Security’s Motion for Summary Affirmance (d/e 11), and remand
this case for further proceedings under Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g). Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due
within 14 days of service of a copy of the Report and
Recommendation. Neither party filed objections.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3), upon receipt of
the Magistrate Judge’s recommended disposition, this Court “may
accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive
further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with
instructions.” This Court reviews findings of the Report and
Recommendation to which no objection has been made for clear
error. Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir.
1999) (noting in addition that a party who fails to object to the
report and recommendation waives appellate review of the factual
and legal questions). This Court reviews de novo only those parts of
a Report and Recommendation to which a timely, proper objection
has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
After reviewing the record, the Report and Recommendation,
the parties’ Motions and memoranda, and the applicable law, the
Court finds no clear error in Magistrate Judge Schanzle-Haskins’s
Report and Recommendation. In adopting the Report and
Recommendation in its entirety, the Court offers the following
summary analysis.
To stand, the decision of an ALJ must be supported by
substantial evidence—that is, “such relevant evidence as a
Page 2 of 5

reasonable mind might accept as adequate” to support the ALJ’s
decision. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971). If
substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision, the Court must
accept the ALJ’s decision and cannot substitute its own judgment
for that of the ALJ. Delgado v. Bowen, 782 F.2d 79, 82 (7th Cir.
1986). But the ALJ must articulate at least minimally her analysis
of all relevant evidence, Herron v. Shalala, 19 F.3d 329, 333 (7th
Cir. 1994), and must “build an accurate and logical bridge from the
evidence to [the] conclusion.” Clifford v. Apfel, 227 F.3d 863, 872
(7th Cir. 2000). Relevant to this case, the opinions of a treating
physician regarding the nature and severity of a medical condition
is entitled to controlling weight if the opinions are well supported by
medical findings and not inconsistent with other substantial
evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).
Here, Magistrate Schanzle-Haskins found that the decision of
the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) failed to minimally articulate
her analysis of the opinions of Dr. Obul Reddy, M.D., a psychiatrist
and Durbin’s treating physician. Specifically, Dr. Reddy opined
that Durbin met the characteristics of Listings 12.04 (affective
disorders) and 12.06 (anxiety-related disorders). Because the ALJ’s
Page 3 of 5

reached the opposite conclusion, the ALJ was obligated to explain
why she rejected Dr. Reddy’s opinions regarding these Listings. But
the ALJ did not address Dr. Reddy’s opinions regarding these
Listings.
The ALJ should decide in the first instance whether Dr.
Reddy’s opinions were well supported by medical findings and not
inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. See
Powers v. Apfel, 207 F.3d 431, 434–35 (7th Cir. 2000) (“Because the
Commissioner is responsible for weighing the evidence, resolving
conflicts[,] and making independent findings of fact, this Court may
not decide the facts anew, re-weigh the evidence[,] or substitute its
own judgment for that of the Commissioner to decide whether a
claimant is or is not disabled.” (citation omitted)). Accordingly, this
case should be remanded so that the ALJ can set forth her analysis
of Dr. Reddy’s opinions.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT
(1)

The Report and Recommendation (d/e 13) is ADOPTED in
its entirety.

Page 4 of 5

(2)

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (d/e 8) is
GRANTED and Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Affirmance (d/e 11) is DENIED.

(3)

The decision of the Commissioner is reversed and
remanded for further proceedings pursuant to Sentence
Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

IT IS SO ORDERED.
ENTER: December 22, 2014
FOR THE COURT:

s/ Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 5 of 5