Purvis v. Colvin

Filing 18

ORDER granting 10 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 12 Motion to Affirm; granting in part and denying in part 15 Report and Recommendation. Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on 09/25/2015. (AC)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
MARY PURVIS, s/p/a Mary Hodge

PLAINTIFF

V.

CAUSE NO. 3:14-CV-290-CWR-FKB

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner,
United States Social Security Administration

DEFENDANT

ORDER
Before the Court is the plaintiff’s objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation (R&R). Docket No. 16. The R&R recommends affirming the Commissioner’s
denial of Supplemental Security Income. Docket No. 15.
The Court has reviewed de novo the portions of the R&R to which the plaintiff has
objected. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). It concludes that remand is required.
Although the ALJ’s conclusion may ultimately be correct, she did not apply the Newton
factors in evaluating Dr. Clark’s opinion. See Newton v. Apfel, 209 F.3d 448, 456 (5th Cir.
2000); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). This may have been unproblematic had there been record
evidence from another treating or examining physician casting doubt on Dr. Clark’s opinion.
E.g., Qualls v. Astrue, 339 F. App’x 461, 466-67 (5th Cir. 2009). But there was not. And, under
current law, “[a]bsent reliable medical evidence from a treating or examining physician
controverting the claimant’s treating specialist, an ALJ may reject the medical opinion of the
treating physician only if the ALJ performs a detailed analysis of the treating physician’s views
under the criteria set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2), . . . .” Thibodeaux v. Astrue, 324 F.
App’x 440, 444 (5th Cir. 2009) (emphasis added); see Beasley v. Barnhart, 191 F. App’x 331,
336 (5th Cir. 2006) (remanding for application of Newton factors); Abadie v. Barnhart, 200 F.
App’x 297, 298 (5th Cir. 2006) (same).

The Magistrate Judge concluded that the Newton factors were unnecessary because the
ALJ had good cause to disregard Dr. Clark’s opinion. The post-Newton cases cited above,
however, as well as the plain language of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), suggest that the Newton
factors are supposed to inform whether there is good cause for disregarding a treating physician’s
opinion. Because their application was required (again, given the lack of reliable, contrary
evidence from a treating or examining physician), the case must be remanded.
Accordingly, the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is granted, and the
Commissioner’s motion to affirm is denied. A separate Final Judgment will issue this day.
SO ORDERED, this the 25th day of September, 2015.

s/ Carlton W. Reeves
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2