Flores v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
Filing
15
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 14 Report and Recommendation. The Court VACATES the decision of the ALJ that Plaintiff be denied Supplemental Security Income benefits, REMANDS this matter to the ALJ for proceedings consis tent with this opinion. On remand, as the Magistrate Judge recommended, the ALJ should set forth specific, valid reasons for the weight assigned to the various psychologists' opinions of record. Without a recitation of such reasons, the Court cannot review meaningfully the ALJ's determination as required by the Social Security Rules and Regulations and Sixth Circuit law. Signed by Judge S Arthur Spiegel on 10/18/2011. (km1)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
TIMOTHY FLORES,
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant.
NO. 1:10-CV-540
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s
September 13, 2011 Report and Recommendation (doc. 14), to which no
objections were filed. For the reasons indicated herein, the Court
AFFIRMS the Magistrate Judge’s recommended decision and ADOPTS the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation in all respects,
VACATES the decision of the Administrative Law Judge denying
Plaintiff’s
application,
and
REMANDS
this
case
for
further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The procedural and factual background of this case are welldetailed in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, and
the Court will not reiterate it here. In brief, however, Plaintiff
applied for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) benefits
on
August 30, 2007, alleging disability since October 24, 1994 because
of blindness in his right eye, vision problems in his left eye,
bipolar
disorder,
and
ADHD.
This
application
Plaintiff’s second one; his first application,
2005, was denied.
current case
actually
was
filed January 26,
The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) in the
concluded he was not bound by the prior residual
functional capacity determination because
the 2007 application
involved new and material evidence regarding Plaintiff’s mental
impairments and alcohol abuse (doc. 14 at 1).
On November 23,
2009, the ALJ issued a decision denying Plaintiff’s application, a
determination that became the final administrative decision of the
Commissioner when Plaintiff’s request for review by the Appeals
Council was denied (id. at 2, 3).
Plaintiff then sought review
from this Court.
The
Magistrate
Judge
reviewed
the
Plaintiff’s two assignments of error.
record
and
addressed
In her September 13, 2011
Report and Recommendation, she concluded that the first assignment
of error should be overruled because the ALJ’s determination that
Plaintiff
did
not
meet
or
equal
Listing
12.05C
for
mental
retardation is supported by substantial evidence (id. at 18).
While the Magistrate Judge concurred with the Plaintiff’s position
that the ALJ improperly substituted his own opinion for that of the
consultative examining psychologist, Nancy Schmidtgoessling, Ph.D.,
she found this error to be harmless because Plaintiff did not
present direct evidence showing he met the diagnostic criteria for
mental retardation (id. at 18-19).
She additionally noted that
Plaintiff’s purported contention that the ALJ
was bound to
“consider” whether Plaintiff’s impairments were equivalent to the
Listing for mental retardation was without merit as the ALJ in fact
had done so (id. at 20-21).
While the Magistrate Judge found Plaintiff’s first assignment
of error to be without merit, she concluded that his second
assignment of error should be sustained (id. at 21).
Plaintiff
argues that the ALJ was not sufficiently clear with respect to the
weight he assigned to the various psychologists’ opinions of
record.
In this regard, the Magistrate Judge particularly agreed
with Plaintiff that the ALJ did not provide specific and valid
reasons for why he gave the most weight to the opinion of Alice
Chambly,
Psy.D.,
psychologist,
a
non-examining
rather
than
Schmidtgoessling (id. at 23).
to
state
the
agency
consultative
aforementioned
Dr.
Without detail of the factors the
ALJ considered in crediting a non-examining source, Dr. Chambly,
over an examining source, Dr. Schmidtgoessling, the Court cannot
conduct a meaningful judicial review (id. at 24). The Magistrate
Judge then recommended that, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C.
§405(g),
the case be remanded for further proceedings (id. at 24-
26).
No
objections
to
the
Report
and
Recommendation
of
the
Magistrate Judge were filed, and the Court finds no clear error in
the record.
See Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72;
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that
Congress
intended
to
require
district
court
review
of
a
magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any
other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”).
On the contrary, the Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation well-reasoned, thorough, and correct. Accordingly,
the Court ADOPTS and AFFIRMS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation (doc. 14), VACATES the decision of the ALJ that
Plaintiff be denied Supplemental Security Income benefits, REMANDS
this matter to the ALJ for proceedings consistent with this
opinion.
On remand, as the Magistrate Judge recommended, the ALJ
should set forth specific, valid reasons for the weight assigned to
the
various
psychologists’
opinions
of
record.
Without
a
recitation of such reasons, the Court cannot review meaningfully
the ALJ’s determination as required by the Social Security Rules
and Regulations and Sixth Circuit law.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 18, 2011
/s/ S. Arthur Spiegel
S. Arthur Spiegel
United States Senior District Judge
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?