Johnson v. Astrue

Filing 25

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. 1. Defendant Acting Commissioner of Social Security Carolyn W. Colvin's objections (Doc. No. 22 ) to Magistrate Judge Jeanne J. Graham's August 19, 2013 Report and Recommendation are OVERRULED. 2. Magistrate Judge Jeanne J. Grahams August 19, 2013 Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 21 ) is ADOPTED. 3. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 8 ) is GRANTED. 4. Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 17 ) is DENIED. 5. The case is REMANDED to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for an award of benefits as of March 29, 2006. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 9/26/2013. (BJS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Todd A. Johnson,

Civil No. 12-1153 (DWF/JJG)
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

Carolyn W. Colvin,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

This matter is before the Court upon Defendant Acting Commissioner of Social
Security Carolyn W. Colvin’s (“Defendant’s”) Objections, (Doc. No. 22), to Magistrate
Judge Jeanne J. Graham’s August 19, 2013 Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc.
No. 21), insofar as it recommends that: (1) Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be
granted; (2) Defendant’s motion for summary judgment be denied; (3) the case be
remanded to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for an
award of benefits as of March 29, 2006; and (4) if the Report and Recommendation is
adopted, that judgment be entered accordingly. Plaintiff Todd A. Johnson filed a
Response to Defendant’s Objections on September 17, 2013. (Doc. No. 24.)
The Court has conducted a de novo review of the record, including a review of the
arguments and submissions of counsel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local
Rule 72.2(b). The factual background for the above-entitled matter is clearly and
precisely set forth in the Report and Recommendation and is incorporated by reference
for purposes of Defendant’s objections.

In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge concluded that the
record as a whole is consistent with Plaintiff’s allegations of chronic pain that would
preclude him from performing work at an average pace and without an impermissible
number of absences due to pain and that Plaintiff thereby established disability. (R&R
at 19.) The Magistrate Judge also held that because disability was established, the ALJ’s
decision should be reversed and not remanded for further consideration. (Id.)
In Defendant’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation,
Defendant argues that the substantial evidence supports the findings by the ALJ that
Plaintiff could perform his past relevant work and that Plaintiff’s complaints of
debilitating pain and symptoms were not entirely credible. (Doc. No. 22 at 1.)
Specifically, Defendant argues that: (1) the Magistrate Judge’s reliance on medical
records that post-date Plaintiff’s insured status was inaccurate because it failed to show
Plaintiff’s disabilities during the relevant time period (id. at 1-3); (2) that substantial
evidence supports the ALJ’s finding and therefore the Report and Recommendation’s
holding was merely reaching a different conclusion on the evidence before it (id. at 3-4);
(3) that any reliance by the Magistrate Judge on jobs that could involve hazards or
hazardous machinery was misplaced because Plaintiff waived this issue on a number of
grounds (id. at 4-5); and (4) that the Magistrate Judge improperly relied on a credibility
finding (id. at 6-8). Defendant also contends that if the Court disagrees with the ALJ’s
findings, the Court should remand the case for further consideration rather than reversing
and remanding the decision for an award of benefits. (Id. at 8-10.)
2

Having carefully reviewed the record, and based upon the de novo review of the
record and all of the arguments and submissions of the parties, the Court concludes that
Defendant’s objections do not warrant departure from the Magistrate Judge’s
Recommendation and agrees with the conclusion that Plaintiff established disability with
substantial evidence. The Court being otherwise duly advised in the premises, the Court
hereby enters the following:
ORDER
1.

Defendant Acting Commissioner of Social Security Carolyn W. Colvin’s

objections (Doc. No. [22]) to Magistrate Judge Jeanne J. Graham’s August 19, 2013
Report and Recommendation are OVERRULED.
2.

Magistrate Judge Jeanne J. Graham’s August 19, 2013 Report and

Recommendation (Doc. No. [21]) is ADOPTED.
3.

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. [8]) is GRANTED.

4.

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. [17]) is DENIED.

5.

The case is REMANDED to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four

of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for an award of benefits as of March 29, 2006.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: September 26, 2013

s/Donovan W. Frank
DONOVAN W. FRANK
United States District Judge

3