Smith v. Colvin

Filing 19

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ; adopting 17 Report and Recommendations. Pltfs req. for new admin hrg. is granted; The decision of Com. is Vacated; Case is remanded.Signed by Honorable Malachy E Mannion on 3/22/18. (bs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ANTOINETTE SMITH,
Plaintiff

:

NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Defendant

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-1844

:

v.

:

JUDGE MANNION

:
:
ORDER

Pending before the court is the report of Magistrate Judge Martin C.
Carlson which recommends that the plaintiff’s request for a new administrative
hearing be granted, the final decision of the Commissioner denying the
plaintiff’s claims be vacated and the matter be remanded to the Commissioner
to conduct a new administrative hearing pursuant to sentence four of 42
U.S.C. §405(g) and 42 U.S.C. §1383(c)(3). (Doc. 17). The defendant has
waived the opportunity to object to Judge Carlson’s report, (Doc. 18), and no
objections have been filed by the plaintiff. Upon review, the report will be
adopted in its entirety.
When no objection is made to a report and recommendation, the court
should, as a matter of good practice, “satisfy itself that there is no clear error
on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b), advisory committee notes; see also Univac Dental Co. v. Dentsply
Intern., Inc., 702 F.Supp.2d 465, 469 (M.D.Pa. 2010) (citing Henderson v.

Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987) (explaining judges should give
some review to every report and recommendation)). Nevertheless, whether
timely objections are made or not, the district court may accept, not accept,
or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the
magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31.
In her appeal, the plaintiff argues that the ALJ erroneously assigned
great weight to a medical expert opinion concerning her physical health while
giving little weight to her mental healthcare providers; the ALJ failed to
acknowledge treating psychologist Dr. Arkadiev’s medical opinion; and the
ALJ failed to properly evaluate all of the plaintiff’s medically determinable
impairments. In carefully considering the plaintiff’s claims, Judge Carlson
concludes that the ALJ has not adequately explained the basis for the
decision to reject all treating mental health care provider opinions. Moreover,
Judge Carlson concludes that the ALJ’s finding that the plaintiff is not disabled
is not supported by substantial evidence because the ALJ does not explain
which evidence concerning the plaintiff’s mental health led him to that
conclusion. As such, Judge Carlson recommends that the Commissioner’s
decision be vacated and that the matter be remanded for further consideration
by the Commissioner.
The court has reviewed the entire report of Judge Carlson and finds no

2

clear error of record. The court further agrees with the sound reasoning which
led Judge Carlson to his recommendation. As such, the court adopts the
reasoning of Judge Carlson as the opinion of the court.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
(1)

The report and recommendation of Judge Carlson, (Doc.
17), is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY.

(2)

The plaintiff’s request for a new administrative hearing is
GRANTED.

(3)

The final decision of the Commissioner denying the
plaintiff’s claims is VACATED.

(4)

The matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner to conduct
a new administrative hearing pursuant to sentence four of
42 U.S.C. §405(g) and 42 U.S.C. §1383(c)(3).

(5)

The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE.

s/ Malachy E. Mannion
MALACHY E. MANNION
United States District Judge

Date: March 22, 2018
O:\Mannion\shared\ORDERS - DJ\CIVIL ORDERS\2016 ORDERS\16-1844-01.wpd

3