Little v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
17
Memorandum Opinion & Order. The Court has carefully reviewed the Report and Recommendation and agrees with the findings set forth therein. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Greenberg (ECF # 15 ) is ADOPTED. The decision of the Commissioner is VACATED and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with the Report and Recommendation. IT IS SO ORDERED. Judge Donald C. Nugent on 7/12/2018. (M,S)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
ELIZABETHANN LITTLE,
Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Acting Comm’r of Soc. Sec.,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 1:17-CV-01756
JUDGE DONALD C. NUGENT
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate
Judge Jonathan D. Greenberg. The Report and Recommendation (ECF #15), issued on June 4,
2018 recommends the Commissioner’s final decision be VACATED and the case REMANDED
for further proceedings. On June 7, 2018 the Government filed its response to the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation, indicating it would not be filing objections. (ECF #16).
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The applicable standard of review of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation
depends upon whether objections were made to the report. Whereas here, no timely objection
was filed, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record
in order to accept the recommendation. FED. R. CIV. P. 72 advisory committee’s notes (citation
omitted). However, “the Social Security Act authorizes narrow judicial review of the final
decisions of the Social Security Administration (SSA).” Reynolds v. Comm’r Soc. Sec., 2011 WL
1228165 at *2 (6th Cir. April 1, 2011). This review is limited to determining whether the
Commissioner’s decision is (1) supported by substantial evidence and (2) made pursuant to
proper legal standards. See Ealy v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 572 F.3d 504, 512 (6th Cir. 2010). The
court does not review the evidence de novo, make credibility determinations, or weigh the
evidence when determining whether an ALJ’s findings are supported by substantial evidence.
Brainard v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 889 F.2d 679, 681 (6th Cir. 1989).
II. ANALYSIS
Plaintiff raised three objections to Commissioner’s final decision denying Plaintiff Period
of Disability (“POD”) and Disability Insurance Benefits (“DOB”): (1) that the Administrative
Law Judge (“ALJ”) failed to articulate “good reasons” for discounting the opinions of her
treating physicians, specifically Dr. Nickels and Dr. Vazquez, (2) that the ALJ’s credibility
determination is not supported by substantial evidence, and (3) that the ALJ erred by failing to
address all supported limitations in his RFC analysis.
Regarding Plaintiff’s first objection, a treating source opinion must be given “controlling
weight” if such opinion is (1) “well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory
diagnostic techniques” and (2) “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case
record.” Gayheart v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 710 F.3d 365, 372 (6th Cir. 2013). The ALJ must
provide “good reasons” for discounting the opinion of a treating source opinion that are
“sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave
to the treating source’s medical opinion and the reasons for that weight” if the ALJ determines
that the treating source opinion is not entitled to controlling weight. Rogers v. Comm’r of Soc.
Sec., 486 F.3d 234, 242 (6th Cir. 2007) (quoting SSR 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188 at *5). The Sixth
2
Circuit has held that an ALJ’s failure to articulate “good reasons” for discounting a treating
physician’s opinion “denotes a lack of substantial evidence, even where the conclusion of the
ALJ may be justified based upon the record.” Rogers, 486 F.3d at 243.
Magistrate Judge Greenberg determined that the ALJ failed to give “good reasons” for
rejecting both Dr. Nickels and Dr. Vazquez’s opinions as treating physicians. The record reflects
that Dr. Nickel’s opinion was capable of showing that Plaintiff had disabling limitations during
the relevant time period and that it is consistent with the medical evidence. The ALJ rejected Dr.
Vazquez’s opinion on the basis that it was inconsistent with Plaintiff’s ability to manage
household chores and tasks. However, the ALJ failed to reconcile this finding with Plaintiff’s
own statements articulating her need for substantial amounts of help to complete household
chores and the medical evidence indicative of Plaintiff’s high levels of pain. Due to the finding
that the ALJ failed to set forth “good reasons” for rejecting the treating physicians’ opinions, a
remand is necessary to allow the ALJ the opportunity to properly address these opinions.
Magistrate Judge Greenberg further determined that the Court need not address
Plaintiff’s second and third assignments of error. However, the ALJ should reevaluate Plaintiff’s
credibility and the medical evidence relating to Plaintiff’s physical and mental impairments on
remand.
III. CONCLUSION
The Court has carefully reviewed the Report and Recommendation and agrees with the
findings set forth therein. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Greenberg (ECF
3
#15) is ADOPTED. The decision of the Commissioner is VACATED and the case is
REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with the Report and Recommendation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Donald C. Nugent
DONALD C. NUGENT
United States District Judge
DATED: ___July 12, 2018___
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?