Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 21

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 18 ; Commissioner's decision is vacated and this matter remanded under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g); signed by Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker (Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

MATTHEW L. JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 1:15-CV-74
v.
HON. ROBERT J. JONKER
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
__________________________________/
ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Carmody’s Report and Recommendation in this
matter (docket # 18); the Commissioner’s Objection (docket # 19); and Plaintiff’s Response (docket
# 20). Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, where, as here, a party has objected to portions
of a Report and Recommendation, “[t]he district judge . . . has a duty to reject the magistrate judge’s
recommendation unless, on de novo reconsideration, he or she finds it justified.” 12 WRIGHT,
MILLER, & MARCUS, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 3070.2, at 381 (2d ed. 1997).
Specifically, the Rules provide that:
The district judge to whom the case is assigned shall make a de novo
determination upon the record, or after additional evidence, of any
portion of the magistrate judge's disposition to which specific written
objection has been made in accordance with this rule. The district
judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended decision,
receive further evidence, or recommit the matter to the magistrate
judge with instructions.

FED R. CIV. P. 72(b). De novo review in these circumstances requires at least a review of the
evidence before the Magistrate Judge. Hill v. Duriron Co., 656 F.2d 1208, 1215 (6th Cir. 1981).
The Court has reviewed de novo the claims and evidence presented to the Magistrate Judge; the
Report and Recommendation itself; Defendant’s Objection; and Plaintiff’s Response. The Court
finds the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (docket # 18) factually sound and legally
correct.
The Magistrate Judge found that the ALJ’s rationale for discounting treating physician
Palella’s opinion is not supported by substantial evidence, and recommended that the Court remand
the matter for further factual findings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Defendant
premises the Objection on Defendant’s speculation about what the ALJ might have meant to say
about his reasons for discounting Dr. Palella’s opinion. Defendant’s speculation is simply no
substitute for the ALJ’s articulation of his own reasons. Here, the record does not disclose a proper
basis for discounting Dr. Palella’s determination as a treating physician of physical and behavioral
restrictions and limitations. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the matter must be
remanded, for precisely the reasons detailed in the Report and Recommendation.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge (docket # 18) is approved and adopted as the opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commissioner’s decision is VACATED and this
matter REMANDED for further factual findings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

Dated:

January 13, 2016

/s/ Robert J. Jonker
ROBERT J. JONKER
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2