Davis v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Filing 27

ORDER RULING ON 20 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The court adopts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and the Commissioner's decision is reversed and remanded for further administration action pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Signed by Honorable Henry M Herlong, Jr on 5/12/2011. (gnan) ) Modified on 5/12/2011 to edit text.(gnan ).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION

Johnny Vernon Davis, Jr.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of the
Social Security Administration,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C.A. No. 1:10-1429-HMH-SVH

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the court with the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.1 Johnny Vernon Davis, Jr. (“Davis”) seeks
judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s (“Commissioner”) denial of his
applications for disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) and supplemental security income (“SSI”)
under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. Magistrate Judge Hodges recommends
reversing the Commissioner’s decision and remanding the case for further administrative action.
The Commissioner filed objections to the Report and Recommendation on April 18, 2011. For
the reasons explained below, the court reverses the ALJ’s denial of benefits and remands the
case to the Commissioner for further administrative action.
1

The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with
this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (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 with instructions.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
1

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The facts are fully set forth in the decision of the administrative law judge (“ALJ”), (R.
at 12-21), and summarized as follows. At the time of the hearing before the ALJ, Davis was a
thirty-five-year-old man with a high school education and past relevant work as a welder,
general laborer, and fork-lift operator. (Id. at 15, 22.) Davis alleges that he has been disabled
since March 24, 2006, due to degenerative disc disease of the lumbar and cervical spine status
post-cervical fusion, status post-left knee surgery, obesity, gout, and hypertension. (Id. 14, 157.)
Davis filed applications for DIB and SSI on April 3, 2006. (Id. at 103, 109.) The
applications were denied initially and upon reconsideration. (Id. at 12.) On September 26,
2008, Davis appeared and testified at a hearing before the ALJ. (R. at 22-43.) The ALJ
concluded that Davis did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or
medically equals the criteria of 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. (Id. at 15-16.)
Accordingly, the ALJ determined that Davis was not disabled and denied his applications for
DIB and SSI. (Id. at 21.) On May 6, 2010, the Appeals Council denied Davis’ request for
review of the ALJ’s decision, thereby making the determination of the ALJ the final decision of
the Commissioner. (Id. at 1.) Davis filed the instant action on June 3, 2010.
II. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The magistrate judge found that the ALJ failed to fully consider and explain the
cumulative effect of Davis’ impairments in determining that he was not disabled. (Report &
Recommendation 27-30.) Consequently, Magistrate Judge Hodges recommends remanding the
case to the ALJ for further administrative action. (Id. at 35.)

2

III. DISCUSSION OF THE LAW
A. Standard of Review
Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the court may review only whether the Commissioner’s
decision is supported by substantial evidence and whether the correct law was applied. See
Myers v. Califano, 611 F.2d 980, 982 (4th Cir. 1980). Accordingly, the court “must uphold the
factual findings of the [Commissioner] if they are supported by substantial evidence and were
reached through application of the correct legal standard.” Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 589
(4th Cir. 1996). “Substantial evidence” is defined as “such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion; it consists of more than a
mere scintilla of evidence but may be somewhat less than a preponderance.” Id. (internal
citations omitted). Hence, absent any error of law, if the Commissioner’s findings are supported
by substantial evidence, the court should uphold the Commissioner’s findings even if the court
disagrees. See Hays v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453, 1456 (4th Cir. 1990).
B. Objections
The Commissioner objects to the magistrate judge’s conclusion that the ALJ failed to
adequately consider and explain the cumulative effect of Davis’ impairments in determining that
he was not disabled. The Commissioner contends that the ALJ’s “explicit statement . . . that he
considered the effect of Plaintiff’s impairments ‘in combination’” coupled with his declaration
that he “considered all [of Davis’] symptoms” evidences that the ALJ properly considered
Davis’ combined impairments throughout the sequential evaluation process. (Objections 2-4.)
When determining whether a claimant with multiple impairments is disabled, the ALJ
must evaluate the impairments’ combined effect, even if the impairments are insufficient to
3

establish a disability when considered independently. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(B). “As a corollary
to this rule,” the Fourth Circuit has instructed that “the ALJ must adequately explain his or her
evaluation of the combined effects of the impairments.” Walker v. Bowen, 889 F.2d 47, 50 (4th
Cir. 1989). It is well established that the ALJ is required to “make a particularized finding on
the effect of the combination of impairments.” Hines v. Bowen, 872 F.2d 56, 59 (4th Cir. 1989)
(emphasis added). Although the ALJ found that Davis’ combined impairments did not render
him disabled, the ALJ failed to provide any explanation to support his conclusory finding. (R. at
15-16.) Without a particularized explanation of the effect of Davis’ combined impairments, “to
say that [the ALJ’s] decision is supported by substantial evidence approaches an abdication of
the court’s duty to scrutinize the record as a whole to determine whether the conclusions reached
are rational.” Arnold v. Sec. of Health, Educ. & Welfare, 567 F.2d 258, 259 (4th Cir. 1977)
(internal quotation marks omitted). The court, therefore, remands the case to allow the ALJ to
specifically address and explain the cumulative effect of Davis’ impairments throughout his
sequential evaluation. The court’s decision in this matter should not be construed to indicate
that the court has an opinion regarding whether Davis is entitled to benefits under the Social
Security Act.
Based on the foregoing, the court adopts the Report and Recommendation of the
magistrate judge, reverses the decision of the Commissioner, and remands the case for further
administrative action.

4

It is therefore
ORDERED that the Commissioner’s decision is reversed and remanded for further
administrative action pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Henry M. Herlong, Jr.
Senior United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
May 12, 2011

5