MAGALON v. COLVIN

Filing 18

ORDER THAT THE CLAMANT'S REQUEST FOR REVIEW IS GRANTED, AND THE MAGISTRATE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS ADOPTED IN PART, BUT MODIFIED AS OUTLINED HEREIN. SIGNED BY HONORABLE GERALD A. MCHUGH ON 6/30/2016. 6/30/2016 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(amas)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JOANNE CHRISTINE MAGALON,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION
No. 14-5258

ORDER
This 30th day of June, 2016, upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Request for Review and
Defendant’s Response thereto, and after careful review of the Report and Recommendation of
the Magistrate Judge, for the reasons that follow, it is hereby ORDERED that the Claimant’s
Request for Review is GRANTED, and the Magistrate’s Report & Recommendation is adopted
in part, but modified as follows:
1. This matter is REMANDED as recommended by the Magistrate for further
consideration of whether a particular aspect of Plaintiff’s treatment regimen is
necessary and, if so, the effect it has on her residual functional capacity (“RFC”)
and the vocational base; and
2. This matter is further REMANDED for more detailed and specific consideration
as to whether the opinions of the treating psychologist and therapist are entitled to
controlling weight pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 416.92(c)(2), for the reasons that
follow.
Under Fargnoli v. Massanari, 247 F.3d 34, 43 (3d Cir. 2001), an Administrative Law
Judge (ALJ) must consider and explain her reasons for rejecting relevant evidence. “In choosing
to reject the treating physician's assessment, an ALJ may not make ‘speculative inferences from
1

medical reports’ and may reject ‘a treating physician's opinion outright only on the basis of
contradictory medical evidence’ and not due to his or her own credibility judgments, speculation
or lay opinion.” Morales v. Apfel, 225 F.3d 310, 317 (3d Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). The
record does not reflect that the ALJ adequately considered the length and intensity of the
therapeutic relationship between claimant and her primary caregivers Barry Jacobs, PsyD, and
Melanie O’Neill. The outpatient nature of the relationship cannot be deemed dispositive where
inpatient treatment was strongly recommended, particularly where a claimant’s parental
responsibilities would necessarily limit opportunities for inpatient treatment. Nor can the
claimant’s ability to fulfill her parental responsibilities for her four children be deemed
conclusive where there is substantial evidence that her ability to cope is the result of a strong
support network, which was not specifically considered by the ALJ. See 20 C.F.R. § Pt. 404,
Subpt. P, App. 1, ¶ 12.00(C)(1). Finally, I agree with claimant that the assessment conducted by
the state agency reviewer, Sandra Banks, PhD, cannot form the basis for rejecting the opinions of
the treating therapists, where the ALJ did not address that review. For these reasons, I also
remand for reconsideration of the weight to be applied to the assessment provided by Dr. Jacobs
and Ms. O’Neill.
/s/ Gerald Austin McHugh
United States District Court Judge

2