Morrison v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 17

ORDER entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 08/18/2016. SEE WRITTEN ORDER. The Report and Recommendation (d/e 16 ) is ADOPTED in its entirety. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (d/e 11 ) is GRANTED; and the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Affirmance (d/e 14 ) is DENIED. The decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED and REMANDED, under Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g), for further proceedings consistent with this Order. THIS CASE IS CLOSED. (DM, ilcd)

E-FILED

Friday, 19 August, 2016 04:31:53 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
LORI S. MORRISON,

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

No. 15-cv-3124

ORDER
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge:
This matter comes before the Court on the Report and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Tom
Schanzle-Haskins (d/e 16). Judge Schanzle-Haskins recommends
that Plaintiff Lori S. Morrison’s Motion for Summary Judgment (d/e
11) be GRANTED and Defendant Commissioner of Social Security’s
Motion for Summary Affirmance (d/e 14) be DENIED. Judge
Schanzle-Haskins recommends that this Court REVERSE and
REMAND the decision of the Commissioner that Plaintiff is not
entitled to Social Security Disability Benefits under Title II of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 416(i) and 423).
Page 1 of 8

Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due on or
before August 15, 2016. Neither party filed objections.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3), the Court
Amay accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive
further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with
instructions.@ Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The Court reviews de novo
any part of the Report and Recommendation to which a proper
objection has been made. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). AIf no objection
or only partial objection is made, the district court judge reviews
those unobjected portions for clear error.@ Johnson v. Zema Sys.
Corp., 170 F. 3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999) (also noting that a party
who fails to object to the report and recommendation waives
appellate review of the factual and legal questions).
Plaintiff filed a Title II application for a period of disability and
disability benefits, alleging disability beginning April 19, 2011. The
claim was denied initially on August 6, 2012 and upon
reconsideration on January 7, 2013. Plaintiff then filed a written
request for hearing on February 17, 2013. A hearing was held
before the ALJ at which Plaintiff appeared, represented by attorney

Page 2 of 8

Donald Hanrahan. Based upon the record and the hearing
testimony, the ALJ issued an opinion on February 21, 2014 denying
Plaintiff’s application for benefits.
The ALJ found that Plaintiff meets the insured status
requirements of the Social Security Act and that Plaintiff has not
engaged in substantial gainful activity since her alleged onset date.
The ALJ further found that Plaintiff has the severe impairments of
cervical degenerative disc disease and a history of carpal tunnel
syndrome. However, the ALJ found that Plaintiff’s impairments,
neither independently nor in combination, meet or medically equal
the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404,
Subpart B, Appendix 1.
Accordingly, the ALJ assessed Plaintiff’s residual functional
capacity, and the ALJ found that Plaintiff has the ability to perform
light work, as defined in 20 C.F.R. §404.1567(b). The ALJ further
found that: (1) Plaintiff can never climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds;
Plaintiff can climb ramps or stairs, balance, stoop, kneel, and crouch
or crawl no more than occasionally; and Plaintiff can reach overhead,
handle, and finger bilaterally no more than frequently.

Page 3 of 8

Based on Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity, the ALJ found
that Plaintiff is unable to perform any past relevant work. However,
the ALJ found that, considering Plaintiff’s age, education, work
experience, and residual functional capacity, there are jobs that exist
in significant numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff can
perform. As a result, the ALJ found that Plaintiff is not disabled.
Upon denial of rehearing by the Appeals Council, the ALJ’s decision
became the final decision of the Commissioner.
Plaintiff appealed the Commissioner’s decision to this Court,
and the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment were referred
to Judge Schanzle-Haskins for a Report and Recommendation.
Judge Schanzle-Haskins found that the ALJ’s decision to deny
Plaintiff Disability Insurance Benefits was not supported by
substantial evidence. Specifically, Judge Schanzle-Haskins found
that, when assessing Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity, the ALJ
failed to provide an accurate and logical bridge between two main
pieces of evidence—Plaintiff’s testimony about her college classes and
Plaintiff’s doctors failure to prescribe Plaintiff narcotics for pain—and
the ALJ’s conclusion that Plaintiff is capable of full-time employment
doing light work. Judge Schanzle-Haskins further found that the
Page 4 of 8

ALJ had given this evidence significant weight when making his
decision. As a result, Judge Schanzle-Haskins recommended that
this Court remand the ALJ’s decision for further consideration with
the Report and Recommendation.
First, Judge Schanzle-Haskins found that Plaintiff’s testimony
does not support the ALJ’s conclusion that Plaintiff drove herself to
school multiple times some days. R. 19. Plaintiff does attend
school and drive herself to the campus. However, Plaintiff testified
only that she had one class per day, except one night class. She
testified that she keeps her classes far apart because “it’s really
hard.” Further, Plaintiff testified that, after a class, she must “go
home and take care of pain….” R. 54. Judge Schanzle-Haskins
noted that the ALJ did not explain how he concluded from the above
testimony that Plaintiff drives herself to and from school multiple
times on some days and, therefore, the ALJ failed to build an
accurate and logical bridge.
Judge Schanzle-Haskins next found that the ALJ failed to
indicate how Plaintiff’s ability to complete tests without the need for
alternative accommodation shows greater functional ability than
Plaintiff has alleged. R. 18-19. The ALJ referenced Plaintiff’s
Page 5 of 8

testimony that her examinations could last up to two hours and that
Plaintiff has not needed testing accommodations to date. However,
the ALJ did not explain how Plaintiff’s ability to take examinations
without accommodation supported his finding that Plaintiff could
maintain employment. Further, the AL ignored Plaintiff’s testimony
that she had been able to complete the exams without
accommodation because the exams so far had been short, i.e, not two
hours long. R. 58-59. As a result, Judge Schanzle-Haskins found
that the ALJ again failed to provide a logical bridge from evidence to
conclusion.
Judge Schanzle-Haskins next found that the ALJ failed to
explain how Plaintiff’s attendance of a one-hour class per day with
special needs help equates to an ability to maintain full-time
employment. R. 19. The ALJ did not explain how Plaintiff’s ability
to attend class supported a finding that Plaintiff could maintain
employment. Plaintiff requires note-takers and requires all of her
books be on computer so that they can be read to her. Plaintiff also
requires seating by the door because Plaintiff needs to get up and
move because she cannot stay in one position. R. 13. The ALJ did
not mention how such accommodations could be made for Plaintiff in
Page 6 of 8

an employment setting. Accordingly, Judge-Schanzle-Haskins
again found that the ALJ did not provide a logical bridge from
evidence to conclusion.
Finally, Judge Schanzle-Haskins found that the ALJ failed to
explain how the failure of Plaintiff’s doctors to prescribe narcotics for
Plaintiff’s pain and the ALJ’s conclusion supports a finding that
Plaintiff can work on a full-time basis. The ALJ simply stated that
narcotics were not prescribed. R. 19. He did not explain why the
lack of such a prescription, especially in light of the evidence that Dr.
MacGregor had increased Plaintiff’s gabapentin prescription multiple
times and prescribed a muscle relaxant in addition to her pain
medication, supported a conclusion that Plaintiff could maintain
full-time employment. For this reason, Judge-Schanzle-Haskins
found that the ALJ failed to provide the required logical bridge.
Based on the ALJ’s persistent failure to provide an accurate
logical bridge from the evidence to his conclusions, Judge
Schanzle-Haskins found that the ALJ’s decision was not supported
by substantial evidence.

Page 7 of 8

After reviewing the record, the Report and Recommendation,
the parties= motions and memoranda, as well as the applicable law,
this Court finds no clear error.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
(1)

The Report and Recommendation (d/e 16) is ADOPTED

in its entirety.
(2)

Plaintiff=s Motion for Summary Judgment (d/e 11) is

GRANTED; and the Commissioner=s Motion for Summary
Affirmance (d/e 14) is DENIED.

The decision of the

Commissioner is REVERSED and REMANDED, under Sentence
Four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g), for further proceedings consistent with
this Order.

THIS CASE IS CLOSED.

ENTER: August 18, 2016
FOR THE COURT:
s/ Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 8 of 8