Beck v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 18

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendation 14 . Case is Reversed and Remanded pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. section 405(g). This Case is Terminated on the docket of this Court. Signed by Judge Herman J. Weber on 8/11/11. (do1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

KYMBERLY A. BECK,
Plaintiff
v.

C-1-10-398

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant
ORDER
This

matter

is

before

the

Court

upon

the

Report

and

Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (doc. no. 14),
defendant’s objections (doc. no. 15), plaintiff’s objections (doc. no. 16)
and plaintiff’s memorandum in opposition to defendant’s objections (doc.
no. 17). Plaintiff, a Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) claimant, brought
this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking judicial review of the
final decision of the defendant denying plaintiff's application for disability
insurance benefits. In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate
Judge concluded that the defendant's decision denying plaintiff disability

2
insurance benefits is not supported by substantial evidence and therefore
recommended that the case be reversed pursuant to Sentence Four of 42
U.S.C. § 405(g) and remanded for determination of the appropriate onset
date and an award of benefits.
On March 8, 2007, plaintiff filed an application for DIB, alleging an
onset disability date of July 1, 2000. Plaintiff’s application was denied
initially and upon reconsideration.

Plaintiff’s request for a de novo

hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) was granted.

A

hearing was held on November 3, 2009 and plaintiff, who was
represented by counsel, appeared and testified before ALJ Thomas R.
McNichols, II. Vocational Expert (VE), William J. Braunig, also testified
at the hearing.

The ALJ issued a decision denying plaintiff’s DIB

application on December 3, 2009 and the Appeals Council denied
plaintiff’s request for review.
Defendant makes the following specific objections to the Report
and Recommendation.

3
The Commissioner objects to the Magistrate Judge’s finding that
the ALJ erred in giving little weight to the opinions of plaintiff’s treating
physician, Dr. Reynolds. Between June 15, 2007 and May 20, 2009, Dr.
Reynolds

rendered

several

opinions

psychological/psychiatric impairments.

regarding

plaintiff’s

Dr. Reynolds had never seen

plaintiff professionally until May 12, 2005, however, he opined that
plaintiff was disabled at that time and for at least six months before she
first came to see him. Dr. Reynolds continued to provide opinions about
plaintiff’s disability in response to SSA rejecting his initial opinions.
Defendant argues that the retrospective and conclusory opinions offered
by Dr. Reynolds are not entitled to significant weight because they are
not supported by relevant contemporaneous objective evidence.
The defendant also objects to the Magistrate Judge’s finding that
evidence contemporaneous with the period at issue supports Dr.
Reynolds’ opinions. The Commissioner also objects to the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation remanding this case for a
determination of an onset date and an award of benefits. Defendant
argues that if the ALJ’s decision is not supported by substantial

4
evidence, it should be remanded for further proceedings, rather than for
the determination of an onset date and the award benefits. This Court
DENIES the objections.
Dr. Reynolds reviewed the office notes of Dr. Kravetz who saw
plaintiff from January 2003 through December 2003.

Based on the

description of the severity of plaintiff’s symptoms by Dr. Kravetz, Dr.
Reynolds concluded plaintiff was disabled. The only contrary opinion to
the opinion of Dr. Reynolds, M.D. was provided by the state agency nonexamining, reviewing psychologist, Dr. Hoyle, Ph.D. and was based on an
incomplete record.
The ALJ failed to accord proper weight to the opinions expressed
by

plaintiff’s

long-time

treating

psychiatrist,

Dr.

Reynolds,

in

contravention of Social Security regulations and the law of this Circuit.
The Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that the ALJ had substituted
his own personal opinion for the medical opinion offered by Dr. Reynolds.

5
Plaintiff objects to the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge
that the case be remanded for a determination of the appropriate onset
date because Dr. Kravetz treated Ms. Beck from January 20, 2003
through early 2005, and Dr. Reynolds expressly based his opinion upon a
review of the records of Dr. Kravetz. Accordingly, the Court should find
January 20, 2003 as the appropriate date of disability.

Benefits,

therefore, should be paid from March 1, 2006 forward. This objection is
DENIED.
Upon a de novo review of the record, especially in light of the
parties' objections, the Court finds that parties' contentions have either
been adequately addressed and properly disposed of by the Magistrate
Judge or present no particularized arguments which warrant specific
further responses by this Court. The Court finds that the Magistrate
Judge has accurately set forth the controlling principles of law and
properly applied them to the particular facts of this case and this Court
agrees with the Magistrate Judge.

6
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS AND INCORPORATES HEREIN BY
REFERENCE the Report and Recommendation of the United States
Magistrate Judge. This case is REVERSED AND REMANDED pursuant to
Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for a determination of the correct
onset date and, if the onset date is determined to be on or before March
31, 2005, an award of benefits.
This case is TERMINATED on the docket of this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Herman J. Weber
Herman J. Weber, Senior Judge
United States District Court