Wilcox v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 18

ORDER entered by Chief Judge Sara Darrow on June 10, 2019. The 17 Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. Plaintiff Mark W.'s 13 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and the Commissioner's 14 Motion for Summary Affirmance is DENIED. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 405(g), the Commissioner's decision in this matter is REVERSED and the cause is REMANDED for further proceedings. On remand, an administrative law judge must reconsider this case in accordance with the 17 Report and Recommendation. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment and close the case. (AK, ilcd)

E-FILED

Monday, 10 June, 2019 04:53:54 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ROCK ISLAND DIVISION
MARK W.,
Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY BERRYHILL,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:18-cv-04064-SLD-JEH

ORDER
Plaintiff Mark W. filed an application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental
security income. The Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“the
Commissioner”) issued a partially unfavorable opinion—finding Mark disabled as of April 18,
2017, but not before—and Mark seeks judicial review of the adverse part of the decision
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). See Compl., ECF No. 1. Before the Court are Mark’s Motion
for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 13, the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Affirmance,
ECF No. 14, and United States Magistrate Judge Jonathan Hawley’s Report and
Recommendation, ECF No. 17, which recommends granting Mark’s motion and denying the
Commissioner’s motion.
When a magistrate judge considers a pretrial matter dispositive of a party’s claim or
defense, he must enter a recommended disposition. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1). Parties may object
within fourteen days of being served with a copy of the recommended disposition. Id. 72(b)(2).
The district judge considers de novo the portions of the recommended disposition that were
properly objected to, and may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition, or return it
to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. Id. 72(b)(3). If no objection, or only partial

1

objection, is made, the district judge reviews the unobjected portions of the recommendation for
clear error. Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999).
Neither party has objected to any portion of Judge Hawley’s Report and
Recommendation, so the Court reviews it for clear error only. The Court notes that Judge
Hawley’s review was limited to determining only whether the ALJ applied the correct legal
standard and whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision. See Barnett v. Barnhart,
381 F.3d 664, 668 (7th Cir. 2004). Substantial evidence means “such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” McKinzey v. Astrue, 641
F.3d 884, 889 (7th Cir. 2011) (quotation marks omitted). The ALJ does not have “to provide a
complete and written evaluation of every piece of testimony and evidence, but must build a
logical bridge from the evidence to his conclusion.” Minnick v. Colvin, 775 F.3d 929, 935 (7th
Cir. 2015) (quotation marks omitted). On review, a court cannot reweigh the evidence, decide
questions of credibility, or substitute its own judgment, but must “nonetheless conduct a critical
review of the evidence.” McKinzey, 641 F.3d at 889.
After reviewing the Report and Recommendation, the parties’ motions and memoranda,
and the record, as well as the applicable law, the Court finds no clear error. Accordingly, the
Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 17, is ADOPTED. Plaintiff Mark W.’s Motion for
Summary Judgment, ECF No. 13, is GRANTED and the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary
Affirmance, ECF No. 14, is DENIED. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the Commissioner’s
decision in this matter is REVERSED and the cause is REMANDED for further proceedings.
On remand, an administrative law judge must reconsider this case in accordance with the Report
and Recommendation. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment and close the case.

2

Entered this 10th day of June, 2019.
s/ Sara Darrow
SARA DARROW
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3