Youngblood v. Colvin
Filing
23
OPINION AND ORDER - IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:(1) The Report and Recommendation (d/e 22 ) is ADOPTED in its entirety. (2) Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (d/e 9 ) is GRANTED. (3) Defendant's Motion for Summary Affirmance (d/e 12 ) is DENIED. (4) The decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED and the cause is REMANDED to the Commission for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (5) THIS CASE IS CLOSED. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 9/29/2017. (ME, ilcd)
E-FILED
Friday, 29 September, 2017 08:57:49 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
DIANE YOUNGBLOOD,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 16-cv-03148
OPINION AND 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 SchanzleHaskins (d/e 22). Judge Schanzle-Haskins recommends that this
Court grant Plaintiff Diane Youngblood’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (d/e 9), deny Defendant Commissioner of Social
Security’s Motion for Summary Affirmance (d/e 12), and reverse
and remand the decision of the Commissioner denying Plaintiff’s
applications for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB)
and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) (collectively Disability
Benefits).
Page 1 of 5
Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due on
September 25, 2017. Neither party filed objections.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3), the Court
“may 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). “If 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).
Judge Schanzle-Haskins found that the Administrative Law
Judge (ALJ) failed to build an accurate and logical bridge from the
evidence to his conclusion. Specifically, Judge Schanzle-Haskins
found that the ALJ improperly concluded that Plaintiff could
perform her past relevant work as a housekeeper as that job was
generally performed in the national economy. The ALJ failed to
adequately address the ambiguity in Vocational Expert Gunther’s
Page 2 of 5
testimony as to whether Plaintiff could perform the housekeeping
job if the job involved a fast pace or a high production quota and
whether Gunther’s opinion was limited to the job as Plaintiff
actually performed it or included the job as generally performed.
The ALJ also did not sufficiently explore Gunther’s reversal in her
opinion that Plaintiff could not perform the housekeeping job if the
job involved a fast pace or a high production quota.
Judge Schanzle-Haskins determined that, on remand, the ALJ
should analyze the relevant evidence to determine whether Plaintiff
could perform the housekeeping job as it generally exists in the
national economy. Judge Schanzle-Haskins further concluded that
the ALJ should determine whether the housekeeping job as
generally performed included a fast pace or a high production quota
and, if so, whether Plaintiff could perform the job as generally
performed.
The Report and Recommendation also addresses the issues
Plaintiff raised in her Motion for Summary Judgment. The parties
agree that Gunther’s opinion that Plaintiff could perform her
housekeeping job as actually performed was incorrect.
Page 3 of 5
Plaintiff also argues that Gunther opined that Plaintiff’s prior
work as a housekeeper did not fit within any job type in the
Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) and that it was a composite
job consisting of elements of two or more occupations. Because
composite jobs involve only a determination as to whether the
person could perform the past work as actually performed, Plaintiff
argues that the ALJ erred in relying on Gunther’s opinion to
conclude that Plaintiff could perform the housekeeper job as it was
performed generally. Judge Schanzle-Haskins found that Plaintiff
is factually incorrect—Gunther did not opine that Plaintiff’s past
work as a housekeeper was a composite job nor that it did not fit
within a DOT job type.
After reviewing the record, the Report and Recommendation,
the parties’ motions and memoranda, and the applicable law, this
Court finds no clear error.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
(1)
The Report and Recommendation (d/e 22) is
ADOPTED in its entirety.
(2)
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (d/e 9) is
GRANTED.
Page 4 of 5
(3)
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Affirmance (d/e 12)
is DENIED.
(4)
The decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED and
the cause is REMANDED to the Commission for further
proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
(5)
THIS CASE IS CLOSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ENTER: September 29, 2017
FOR THE COURT:
s/ Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 5 of 5
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?