Cepeda v. Colvin

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 14 Motion to Reverse Decision of the Commissioner; denying 15 Motion to Affirm the Decision of the Commissioner; adopting 17 Report and Recommendations. So Ordered by Chief Judge William E. Smith on 3/17/2017. (Jackson, Ryan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
___________________________________
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
[1]
NANCY A. BERRYHILL , Acting
)
Commissioner, Social Security
)
Administration,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________)
JOANA CEPEDA, on behalf of E.G.,

C.A. No. 16-042 S

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
WILLIAM E. SMITH, Chief Judge.
Before the Court are a Motion to Reverse, filed by

Plaintiff

Joana Cepeda, on behalf of her daughter E.G. (“Plaintiff”) (ECF
No.

14);

a

Commissioner

Motion
of

to

the

Affirm,
Social

filed

by

Security

Defendant

Acting

Administration,

Nancy

Berryhill (“Defendant”) (ECF No. 15); Magistrate Judge Lincoln D.
Almond’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (ECF No. 17), which was
filed on January 6, 2017, and recommends that the Court grant
Plaintiff’s
Affirm;

and

Motion

to

Reverse

Defendant’s

Objection”) (ECF No. 18).
1

and

Objection

deny
to

Defendant’s
the

R&R

Motion

to

(“Defendant’s

The R&R recommends that Final Judgment

Nancy A. Berryhill is now the Acting Commissioner of Social
Security.
Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, Nancy A. Berryhill has been substituted for Acting
Commissioner Carolyn W. Colvin as the defendant in this action.

enter

in

favor

of

Plaintiff,

reversing

the

decision

of

the

Commissioner and remanding this matter for further administrative
proceedings.

(R&R 13.)

Magistrate Judge Almond’s R&R concluded that it was error for
the presiding Social Security Administration’s Administrative Law
Judge (the “ALJ”), under the circumstances presented, “to rely
almost

exclusively

on

the

consulting

psychologists’

opinions.”

(Id.)
In reaching his decision, the ALJ relied on the opinions of
consulting psychologists, Drs. Gordon and Hughes, who in turn had
relied on records from March 2013 and July 2013, respectively.
The ALJ’s decision was in lockstep with the consulting doctors in
every area of potential limitation, and the ALJ stated that he
gave

“great

weight”

to

their

opinions.

(See

e.g.,

ALJ

Hr’g

Decision dated 4/24/14, Administrative R. 31, ECF No. 7-2.)
Dr. Gordon and Dr. Hughes each considered the report of Dr.
Teixeira from February 28, 2013.
No. 7-3.)
decision

(Administrative R. 79, 90, ECF

But, in August 2013 (several months before the ALJ’s
issued

in

April

2014),

E.G.

was

taken

out

of

public

school and placed in a residential program, St. Mary’s Home for
Children

(“St.

Mary’s”).

(See

generally

Summary, Ex. 10F, ECF No. 7-7.)

St.

Mary’s

Discharge

She was discharged from St.

Mary’s in February 2014, and transferred to Farnum House, a second
residential treatment program.

(Id.)
2

As the Magistrate Judge

noted, E.G.’s discharge summary notes from St. Mary’s state that
“[i]t was determined that [E.G.] needed a higher level of care in
order to best meet her educational and behavioral needs.”

(Id. at

1.)
The

Magistrate

“whether

the

Judge

subsequent

identified
change

in

the

issue

before

circumstances

him

as

effectively

rendered the opinions of Dr. Gordon and Dr. Hughes to be stale or
outdated.”

(R&R

11.)

Though

the

ALJ

had

access

to

the

information regarding E.G.’s residential treatment placements, the
doctors on whose opinions he relied did not have access to that
information.

Because both Dr. Gordon and Dr. Hughes noted that

E.G. had “no inpatient/day treatment admissions” (Administrative
R. 82-83, 93-94, ECF No. 7-3), it was error for the ALJ to rely
almost exclusively on their opinions where they were “based on a
significantly incomplete record.”

Alcantara v. Astrue, 257 F.

App’x 333, 334 (1st Cir. 2007).
In her objection, the Defendant argues that “the issue was
whether substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s conclusion that
E.G. did not have marked limitation attending and completing tasks
because

of

her

symptom

medication.” (Def.’s Obj. 3.)

improvement

when

compliant

The Court disagrees.

with

While there

is some evidence that the ALJ reviewed and considered evidence of
E.G.’s

placement

in

residential

treatment

programs,

the

Court

agrees that it was error for the ALJ to give such great weight to
3

outdated and stale opinions by consulting doctors.

The evidence

of her residential treatment placements, as well as her need for a
higher

level

needs,

represents

Alcantara,

of

257

care
a

F.

to

meet

both

material
App’x

behavioral

change

at

334

in

the

(holding

and

educational

evidence.
that

See

consulting

psychologist’s opinion not entitled to significant weight where
claimant’s

condition

subsequently

deteriorated

and

thus

opinion was based on a “significantly incomplete record”).
improved

symptoms

consulting

or

on

treating

medication

is

only

doctors

might

one

consider

piece
in

the

E.G.’s
of

what

reviewing

a

complete set of records.
Accordingly, the Court hereby ACCEPTS the R&R (ECF No. 17);
DENIES

Defendant’s

Objection

to

the

R&R

(ECF

No.

18);

GRANTS

Plaintiff’s Motion to Reverse (ECF No. 14); and DENIES Defendant’s
Motion

to

Affirm

(ECF

No.

15).

Final

Judgment

will

enter

forthwith in favor of Plaintiff, reversing the decision of the
Commissioner and remanding the matter for further administrative
proceedings consistent with this Memorandum and Order and the R&R.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

William E. Smith
Chief Judge
Date: March 17, 2017

4