Dailey v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 26

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 22 Report and Recommendation, except regarding the credibility analysis found at Section II(B)(1)(a), reversing the decision of the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and remanding the matter for further proceedings. Signed by Honorable Richard M. Gergel on 01/15/2015. (bshr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DIST~~:r,,~P,IJ~:r:I;:~. ,
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA'
'.

r~
,;"

1015 J.~N I 5 P 4: 4 b
Paula Kay Dailey,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Carolyn W. Colvin, Commissioner of
Social Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.1: 14-263-RMG

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court for judicial review of the final decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff s application for Disability Insurance Benefits
("DIB") and Supplemental Security Income ("SSI"). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and
Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for
pretrial handling. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation ("R & R") on
December 29,2014 recommending that the decision of the Commissioner be reversed and
remanded because of the failure of the Administrative Law Judge ("ALl") to consider the
statements and testimony of lay witnesses and to adequately explain the weight accorded the
opinions of an examining consulting expert, Dr. Deborah Tyler, Ph.D. (Dkt. No. 22 at 21-26,34­
36). The Commissioner filed no objections to the R & R but the Plaintiff filed limited objections
relating to the credibility analysis performed by the ALJ and the weight accorded the opinions of
a treating physician, Dr. Gerald Congdon. (Dkt. No. 25).

-1­

Legal Standard
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. 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. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(I).
The role of the federal judiciary in the administrative scheme established by the Social
Security Act is a limited one. The Act provides that the "findings of the Commissioner of Social
Security as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive." 42 U.S.C.

§ 405(g). "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). This
standard precludes de novo review of the factual circumstances that substitutes the Court's
findings of fact for those of the Commissioner. Vitekv. Finch, 438 F.2d 1157, 1157 (4th Cir.
1971).
Although the federal court's review role is a limited one, "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." Flack v. Cohen, 413 F.2d 278, 279 (4th Cir. 1969). Further, the
Commissioner's findings of fact are not binding if they were based upon the application of an
improper legal standard. Coffman v. Bowen, 829 F.2d 514, 519 (4th Cir. 1987).

-2­

Discussion
The Court has reviewed the R & R in this matter and concurs in the findings and
conclusions of the ALJ on all matters except the treatment of issues related to Plaintiff's non­
compliance with medical treatment and its impact on the claimant's credibility analysis.
Therefore, the Court adopts as the order of this Court all of the R & R except that portion relating
to credibility analysis set forth at Section III(B)(I)(a) of the R & R.
The Court's specific concern about the credibility analysis performed relates to the
claimant's alleged failure to follow "prescribed treatment without a good reason" and the right of
the Commissioner to find a claimant not disabled on that basis. Transcript of Record ("Tr.") 21.
While non-compliance with prescribed medical treatment is an important factor to consider in
weighing a claimant's credibility, the analysis must not stop at whether the Plaintiff did or did
not comply with prescribed treatment. Additional issues to consider are whether (1) the Plaintiff
lacked funds to comply with treatment; (2) the claimant had "good cause" to decline treatment,
such as the side effects of the medication; and (3) the claimant's impairments were "reasonably
remediable" with adherence to the prescribed treatment. Preston v. Heckler, 769 F.2d 988,990­
91 (4th Cir. 1985); SSR 96-7p, 1996 WL 374186 at *7-8. Since the ALJ has failed to conduct a
particularized inquiry regarding these issues concerning Plaintiff's non-compliance with
prescribed treatment, reversal and remand are necessary. Once these factors are considered, the
ALJ must reweigh and reconsider his credibility analysis.
The Plaintiff also objects to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation concerning the
ALJ's weighing of the opinions of Dr. Gerald Congdon, a treating physician. The Court has
reviewed the R & R, the medical records and opinions of Dr. Congdon and the relevant legal

-3­

standards. The Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge that the ALJ adequately considered and
weighed the factors set forth in the Treating Physician Rule, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527, and there is
substantial evidence in the record to support the findings of the ALJ regarding the weight
accorded the opinions of Dr. Congdon.

Conclusion
Based upon the foregoing, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge, except regarding the credibility analysis found at Section II(B)(l)(a), as the
order of this Court, and further finds that the credibility analysis must be reconsidered after a
proper consideration of whether there was "good cause" for Plaintiffs non-compliance with
prescribed medical treatment and the Plaintiffs condition was reasonably remediable with
adherence to prescribed treatment. Thus, the Court REVERSES the decision of the
Commissioner pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and REMANDS the matter to
the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with this order.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

Richard Mark Gergel
United States District Judge

Charlestonl...South Carolina
January IS, 2015

-4­