Austin v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 23

ORDER entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 9/6/2018. The Report and Recommendation, d/e 21 is ADOPTED in its entirety. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, d/e 12 is GRANTED and, Defendant's Motion for Summary Affirmance, d/e 17 is DENIED. The decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED and REMANDED. This case is CLOSED. (SEE WRITTEN ORDER) (MAS, ilcd)

E-FILED

Friday, 07 September, 2018 12:45:51 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
MELISSA AUSTIN,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
)
Commissioner of Social Security, )
)
Defendant.
)

No. 17-cv-3113

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 21). Judge Schanzle-Haskins recommends that this
Court grant Plaintiff Melissa Austin’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (d/e 12), deny Defendant Commissioner of Social
Security’s Motion for Summary Affirmance (d/e 17), and reverse
and remand the decision of the Defendant Commissioner.
Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due on or
before August 23, 2018. Neither party filed objections.

Page 1 of 4

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).
Judge Schanzle-Haskins found the Administrative Law Judge
erred by analyzing Plaintiff’s fibromyalgia under the standard set
forth in SSR 03-2p for analyzing Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy
Syndrome/Complex Regional Pain Syndrome rather than SSR 122p for analyzing Fibromyalgia. Defendant argued that the error
was harmless because the ALJ found that Plaintiff’s fibromyalgia
was a severe impairment, he partially credited Plaintiff’s allegations
of fibromyalgia-related symptoms, and he evaluated the evidence in
accordance with SSR 16-3p (Evaluation of Symptoms in Disability
Page 2 of 4

Claims) and 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 (“How we evaluate symptoms,
including pain”). Judge Schanzle-Haskins rejected this argument,
finding that the ALJ’s decision did not demonstrate that the ALJ
adequately considered the waxing and waning effect of Plaintiff’s
fibromyalgia when evaluating evidence such as Plaintiff’s periodic
ability to engage in certain activities, relatively normal findings at
some medical examinations, and the opinion of Plaintiff’s primary
care provider, nurse practitioner Mary Ely. Therefore, Judge
Schanzle-Haskins recommends that the matter be remanded for
further consideration under the appropriate legal standard.
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 21) is

ADOPTED in its entirety.
(2)

Plaintiff Motion for Summary Judgment (d/e 12) is

GRANTED and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Affirmance
(d/e 17) is DENIED.

Page 3 of 4

(3)

The decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED and

REMANDED.
(4)

This case is CLOSED.

ENTERED: September 6, 2018
FOR THE COURT:
s/ Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH

Page 4 of 4