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)

Download PDF
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

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?