Harris v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
28
OPINION AND ORDER adopting 20 Report and Recommendations and remanding this action pursuant to sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further consideration of the new, post-March 2013 evidence. Signed by Judge Gregory L. Frost on 7/22/2015. (kk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
RASHAWN HARRIS,
Case No. 2:14-cv-1226
JUDGE GREGORY L. FROST
Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
This action seeks review under 42 U.S.C. ' 405(g) of a decision by Defendant, the
Commissioner of Social Security, that denied applications for disability benefits and
supplemental security income filed by Plaintiff, Rashawn Harris. In a Report and
Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court remand the action pursuant
to sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for consideration of new and material evidence. (ECF No.
20, at Page ID # 910.) The matter is now before the Court for consideration of Defendant’s
objections (ECF No. 25) and Plaintiff’s response (ECF No. 27).
I. Discussion
A. Standard Involved
If a party objects within the allotted time to a report and recommendation, the Court
“shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed
findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b). Upon review, the Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
1
B. Analysis
In her May 15, 2015 Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge addressed the
parties’ numerous issues, with the issue of new and material evidence proving dispositive. The
Magistrate Judge summarized at length evidence that arose after the March 29, 2013
administrative decision and concluded that this evidence was both material to Plaintiff’s
disability claim and warranted a sentence six remand. Defendant objects to this reasoning and
the remand.
The Magistrate Judge properly addressed and disposed of the bulk of Defendant’s
arguments in the Report and Recommendation. Defendant has incorporated those arguments by
reference in the objections, and this Court, after de novo review, similarly incorporates by
reference the Magistrate Judge’s dispositive rationale. The core objection that remains is
Defendant’s contention that the Magistrate Judge erred because no evidence suggests that the
problems involved in the new evidence began before March 30, 2013. Defendant posits that
Plaintiff’s April 19, 2013 injury was the only catalyst for the pain and consequent procedures.
Thus, Defendant reasons, the April 2013 injury cannot be regarded as reasonably proving that the
administrative law judge erred in assessing Plaintiff’s functional capabilities in March 2013.
This Court understands Defendant’s position but disagrees. The record is replete with
evidence of Plaintiff’s pre-existing back pain and, as the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded,
the new evidence of a severe back impairment is sufficiently related to the pre-existing back
impairment so as to warrant a remand. Although there is certainly not a definitively established
correlation as Defendant notes, the evidence currently before this Court suggests but does not
conclusively establish that Plaintiff’s later problems are simply the continuation or evolution of
the precise prior impairments. There is at least a reasonable probability both that this suggestion
2
is accurate and that the new evidence would therefore have affected the outcome of the
proceeding. The degree to which the new evidence ultimately informs the disability
determination, if at all, is an open issue on remand to be resolved by the administrative law
judge.
II. Conclusion
The Court OVERRULES Defendant’s objections (ECF No. 25), ADOPTS and
AFFIRMS the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 20), and REMANDS the action pursuant
to sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further consideration of the new, post-March 2013
evidence. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and terminate this action on the docket
records of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Gregory L. Frost
GREGORY L. FROST
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
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?