Sprague v. Colvin

Filing 37

Judge Richard G. Stearns: ORDER entered Remanding 19 Motion for Order Reversing Decision of Commissioner; Remanding 28 Motion for Order Affirming Decision of Commissioner; adopting Report and Recommendations re 36 Report and Recommendations. (Zierk, Marsha)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-13085-RGS
DAVID SPRAGUE
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
December 1, 2016
STEARNS, D.J.
Plaintiff David Sprague appeals the Commissioner of Social Security’s
decision finding that he is not disabled within the meaning of the Social
Security Act and is therefore ineligible for disability insurance benefits and
supplemental security income. Sprague objects to the Administrative Law
Judge’s (ALJ) Step 2 finding that his alleged mental disorders are nonsevere. Administrative Record (AR) at 15; Appellant’s Mem. at 5.
After a careful analysis of the record, Magistrate Judge Boal
recommended that the case be remanded for further consideration by the
ALJ. She found it unclear from the ALJ’s references to “Mr. Khaira” whether
he understood that Dr. Simreet Khaira, one of Sprague’s care providers, is in

fact a licensed psychiatrists whose opinion deserves some deference in the
disability analysis.1 The Magistrate Judge also noted that the ALJ, and
ultimately the Commissioner, mistakenly faulted Dr. Khaira for failing to
opine as to Sprague’s functional limitations where clearly she had. AR at
422. MJ Boal also points out that there are pages missing from Dr. Khaira’s
report.
As I agree with Magistrate Judge Boal as to the deficiencies in the
record on appeal, I will adopt her recommendation and remand the case to
the Commissioner for further consideration. 2
ORDER
The Recommendation is ADOPTED and the case is REMANDED to
the Commissioner for further consideration of the issues addressed in
Magistrate Judge Boal’s R&R.
SO ORDERED.

Magistrate Judge Boal pointed out “that the Step 2 severity
requirement is . . . to be a de minimis policy, designed to do no more than
screen out groundless claims. . . . [A] finding of ‘non-severe’ is only to be
made where ‘medical evidence establishes only a slight abnormality . . . which
would have no more than a minimal effect on an individual’s ability to work
. . . .’” R&R at 13, quoting McDonald v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 795
F.2d 1118, 1124 (1st Cir. 1986). Therefore, it is important that the court
confirm that the ALJ gave full consideration to Sprague’s complete medical
record. See Heggarty v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 990, 997 (1st Cir. 1991)
1

2

Neither party has filed an objection to the Magistrate Judge’s R&R.
2

/s/ Richard G. Stearns
________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3