Fields v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
Filing
24
OPINION AND ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 21 Report and Recommendation, affirming the decision of the Commissioner. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 11/09/2015. (bshr, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Michael Fields,
Plaintiff,
v.
Carolyn W. Colvin,
Acting Commissioner of Social
Security,
Defendant.
______________________________
) Civil Action No.: 0:14-cv-3061-BHH
)
)
)
)
OPINION AND ORDER
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
The plaintiff, Michael Fields (“the plaintiff”), brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g) to obtain judicial review of a final decision of the Defendant, Acting Commissioner
of Social Security (“Commissioner”), denying his claim for Disability Insurance Benefits
(“DIB”) under Title II of the Social Security Act.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rules 73.02(B)(2)(a) and 83.VII.02, D.S.C., this matter was
referred to United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett for pretrial handling. On
September 30, 2015, the magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which
She determined that the Commissioner’s decision was based on substantial evidence and
free of legal error.
Accordingly, the magistrate judge recommended affirming the
Commissioner’s decision. (ECF No. 21.) The plaintiff filed Objections on October 19, 2015
(ECF No. 22), and on October 28, 2015, the Commissioner filed a Reply (ECF No. 23).
For the reasons stated below, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation and
affirms the Commissioner’s decision.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The Report and Recommendation sets forth in detail the relevant facts and
standards of law, and the Court incorporates them and summarizes below in relevant part.
The plaintiff’s benefits application was denied initially and on reconsideration. A hearing
was held before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) who issued an unfavorable decision
on March 9, 2012, finding that the plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the Act.
(R. at 98-112.) On May 5, 2013, the Appeals Council issued an order remanding the case
back to the ALJ for another hearing which was held on September 5, 2013. (R. at 34-67.)
On September 25, 2013, the ALJ again denied the plaintiff’s claim. (R. at 15-33.) The
Appeals Council denied the plaintiff’s request for review (R. at 1-3), making the ALJ’s
decision the final decision of the Commissioner. The plaintiff subsequently filed an action
in this Court on July 31, 2014. (ECF No. 1.)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The magistrate judge recommends affirming the ALJ’s decision. (ECF No. 21 at
10.)
The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to this Court.
The
recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final
determination remains with the Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The
Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and
Recommendation to which specific objection is made, and the Court may accept, reject,
or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the magistrate judge, or recommit the
matter to her with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). “However, the Court is not required
to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the
2
magistrate judge as to those portions of the report and recommendation to which no
objections are addressed. While the level of scrutiny entailed by the Court’s review of the
Report thus depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case the Court
is free, after review, to accept, reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge’s findings or
recommendations.” Wallace v. Housing Auth. of the City of Columbia, 791 F. Supp. 137,
138 (D.S.C. 1992) (internal citations omitted).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The role of the federal judiciary in the administrative scheme established by the
Social Security Act is a limited one. Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the court may only review
whether the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and whether
the correct law was applied. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (“The findings of the Commissioner
of Social Security as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive
. . . .”); Myers v. Califano, 611 F.2d 980, 982 (4th Cir. 1980). “Substantial evidence has
been defined innumerable times as more than a scintilla, but less than preponderance.”
Thomas v. Celebrezze, 331 F.2d 541, 543 (4th Cir. 1964); see, e.g., Daniel v. Gardner, 404
F.2d 889 (4th Cir. 1968); Laws v. Celebrezze, 368 F.2d 640 (4th Cir. 1966); Tyler v.
Weinberger, 409 F. Supp. 776 (E.D. Va. 1976). In order for a reviewing court to determine
whether the Commissioner based a decision on substantial evidence, “the decision must
include the reasons for the determination . . . .” Green v. Chater, 64 F.3d 657, 1995 WL
478032, *2 (4th Cir.1995) (citing Cook v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 1168, 1172 (4th Cir.1986)).
The statutorily mandated standard precludes a de novo review of the factual circumstances
that substitutes the Court’s findings for those of the Commissioner. See, e.g., Vitek v.
3
Finch, 438 F.2d 1157 (4th Cir. 1971); Hicks v. Gardner, 393 F.2d 299 (4th Cir. 1968).
Accordingly, “the court [must] uphold the [Commissioner’s] decision even should the court
disagree with such decision as long as it is supported by ‘substantial evidence.’” Blalock
v. Richardson, 483 F.2d 773, 775 (4th Cir. 1972). As noted by Judge Sobeloff in Flack v.
Cohen, 413 F.2d 278 (4th Cir. 1969), “[f]rom this it does not follow, however, that the
findings of the administrative agency are to be mechanically accepted. The statutorily
granted right of review contemplates more than an uncritical rubber stamping of the
administrative action.” Id. at 279. “[T]he courts must not abdicate their responsibility to
give careful scrutiny to the whole record to assure that there is a sound foundation for the
[Commissioner’s] findings, and that his conclusion is rational.” Vitek, 438 F.2d at 1157-58.
DISCUSSION
The plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation1 (“Objections”), on
September 30, 2015 (ECF No. 21), and the Commissioner filed a reply on October 28,
2015 (ECF No. 23). The plaintiff summarily objects that the ALJ (1) overestimated the
plaintiff’s functioning and selectively chose from the medical record in support; (2) failed
to properly apply the treating physician’s rule; and (3) erred in according significant weight
to the disability rating given by the Veterans Administration.
Very respectfully, these items are the precise matters raised to the magistrate judge
and appropriately rejected. (See R&R at 6-9); see also Hendrix v. Colvin, 2013 WL
2407126, at *4 (D.S.C. June 3, 2013); Jackson v. Astrue, 2011 WL 1883026 (W.D.N.C.
1
As always, the Court says only what is necessary to address such objections
against the already meaningful backdrop of a thorough Report of the magistrate judge,
incorporated entirely by specific reference, herein, to the degree not inconsistent.
Exhaustive recitation of law and fact exists there.
4
May 17, 2011); Aldrich v. Bock, 327 F. Supp.2d 743, 747 (E.D. Mich. 2004). They have
been reiterated on objection in the most general way, without citation to any specific portion
of the record and without any suggestion as to how the magistrate judge erred in her
consideration of the plaitniff’s arguments. Accordingly, the district court must “‘only satisfy
itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation.’” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 316 (4th Cir.
2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 Advisory Committee’s Note). There is none.
CONCLUSION
The Court has carefully reviewed the record, including the findings of the ALJ, the
plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation, and the defendant’s reply. The
Court concurs in the recommendation of the magistrate judge and thus adopts the Report
and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference to the extent it is consistent
with this order. The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
November 9, 2015
Greenville, South Carolina
5
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?