CASTRO v. ASTRUE

Filing 18

ORDER THAT THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO REMOVE THIS ACTION FROM THE SUSPENSE DOCKET AND RETURN IT TO THE ACTIVE DOCKET; THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR REVIEW IS GRANTED; THIS MATTER IS REMANDED TO THE COMMISSIONER, AND THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO CLOSE THIS CASE. SIGNED BY HONORABLE CYNTHIA M. RUFE ON 6/4/2012. 6/5/2012 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(md)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
________________________________________________
ABIGAIL MILBOURNE CASTRO,
:
Plaintiff,
:
CIVIL ACTION
:
NO. 11-2516
v.
:
:
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
:
Commissioner of the Social Security Administration,
:
Defendant.
:
________________________________________________:
ORDER
AND NOW, this 4th day of June 2012, upon careful and independent consideration of
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief and Statement of Issues [Doc. No. 12],
Defendant’s Response [Doc. No. 15], Plaintiff’s Reply [Doc. No. 16] and the administrative
record, and upon review of the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Chief United States
Magistrate Judge Carol Sandra Moore Wells [Doc. No. 17], to which there were no objections
filed by either party, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1.

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to remove this action from the suspense docket

and return it to the active docket;
2.

The Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 17] is APPROVED and ADOPTED;

3.

Plaintiff’s request for review is GRANTED;

4.

This matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner pursuant to the fourth sentence

of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with the R&R;1 and

1

Judge W ells correctly concludes that the record contains insufficient evidence to support the findings of
the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) that Plaintiff’s headaches are “caused by overuse of medication” alone, that
“[t]here is simply no other explanation for the headaches in the file,” or that, if Plaintiff had eliminated narcotic
medication, “it is most likely that the headaches would have cleared away.” (R.21) In support of those findings, the
ALJ appears to have relied on just two sentences – and selectively from those sentences, at that – suggesting that
Plaintiff suffers from “rebound” headaches caused by excessive narcotic medication. See R.234 (stating Dr. Roby’s
impression at the time that Plaintiff was “suffering from migraine but is also suffering from significant rebound
headaches from her over use of narcotic analgesics,” and recommending that she discontinue narcotics other than

5.

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case.

It is so ORDERED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Cynthia M. Rufe
_____________________
CYNTHIA M. RUFE, J.

those prescribed by Dr. Roby) and R.277 (stating that Dr. Binning “strongly alerted [Plaintiff] about the rebound
headaches as well as the potential addiction with” medications prescribed by Dr. Binning, which included Demerol,
Phenergan, Esgic, and Topomax). In concluding that there is “no other explanation” for Plaintiff’s headaches, the
ALJ ignored a medical record of more than 200 pages documenting Plaintiff’s lengthy history of migraines, and her
treating physicians’ continued prescription of narcotic painkillers. As Judge W ells recommends, remand is
appropriate for the ALJ to reassess Plaintiff’s credibility by evaluating all evidence in the record relevant to the
causes of Plaintiff’s headaches, and by refraining from drawing his own medical conclusions as to Plaintiff’s
prognosis. On remand, the Court recommends that a medical expert be present at the hearing to assist the ALJ in
evaluating Plaintiff’s medical history.