Dierking v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
14
OPINION AND ORDER: The Report and Recommendation 13 is ADOPTED in its entirety. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment 9 is GRANTED. Defendant's Motion for Summary Affirmance 10 is DENIED. 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). This case is closed. SEE WRITTEN OPINION AND ORDER. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 08/07/2018. (SKN, ilcd)
E-FILED
Tuesday, 07 August, 2018 01:53:55 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
DANIEL H. DIERKING,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 17-cv-03128
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 13). Judge Schanzle-Haskins recommends that this
Court grant Plaintiff Daniel Dierking’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (d/e 9), deny Defendant Commissioner of Social
Security’s Motion for Summary Affirmance (d/e 10), 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
August 6, 2018. 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) did not minimally articulate his analysis of all the
relevant evidence. Specifically, Judge Schanzle-Haskins found that
the ALJ improperly failed to address whether Plaintiff’s diagnoses of
hypersomnia and narcolepsy were medically determinable
impairments, and if so, whether the impairments were severe for
the purposes of Step 2 of the Analysis. Judge Schanzle-Haskins
Page 2 of 5
also concluded that the ALJ did not explain why he found that
Plaintiff’s sleep impairment did not have more than a minimal
impact on his ability to engage in work activities from the
September 19, 2013 appointment with Dr. Rai until the October 23,
2014 appointment with Dr. Rai.
Judge Schanzle-Haskins determined that, on remand, the ALJ
should address whether Plaintiff had a severe impairment due to
narcolepsy or hypersomnia. Judge Schanzle-Haskins further
concluded that the ALJ should analyze the relevant evidence to
determine whether Plaintiff could have had a significant problem
with daytime sleepiness from September 19, 2013, to October 23,
2014.
The Report and Recommendation also addresses the issues
the Commissioner raised in the Motion for Summary Affirmance.
The Commissioner argued that Plaintiff could have sought
treatment during the 13 months from September 2013 to October
2014. The Commissioner also argued that even if Plaintiff did not
have medical coverage during that time, Plaintiff could have sought
treatment from free clinics or other cost-effective sources and that
Plaintiff had the burden to show that he had done so.
Page 3 of 5
Judge Schanzle-Haskins found that he did not need to rule on the
merits of these arguments in light of the fact that the ALJ did not
directly address Plaintiff’s condition during that time period.
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 13) 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 10)
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: August 7, 2018
Page 4 of 5
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?