Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
Filing
20
OPINION AND ORDER reversing and remanding 17 Report and Recommendation. The Court remands this matter to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Signed by Honorable Donald C Coggins, Jr on 09/10/2019.(cpeg, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Joyce Johnson,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Andrew M. Saul, Commissioner of
)
Social Security Administration,
)
)
Defendant. )
________________________________ )
C/A No. 2:18-cv-394-DCC
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff has brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking judicial
review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”)
denying her claim for Disability Insurance Benefits.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (D.S.C.), this matter was referred to a United States
Magistrate Judge for pre-trial handling. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) on June 11, 2019, recommending that the Court reverse the
decision of the Commissioner and remand for further proceedings. ECF No. 17. Neither
party filed objections to the Report.
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 this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976).
The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of only those portions of the
Report that have been specifically objected to, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify
the Report, in whole or in part. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of specific
objections, the Court reviews the matter only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial
Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (“[I]n the absence of a timely
1
filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must ‘only
satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation.’” (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note to 1983
addition)).
Having reviewed the record, the applicable law, and the findings and
recommendations of the Magistrate Judge, the Court finds no clear error and adopts the
Report by reference in this Order. The Court is very concerned that the opinion of the
Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") effectively omits several years of records from Plaintiff's
treating physician, particularly in light of the strength of Plaintiff's claim for disability.
Compounding this problem, the ALJ (incorrectly) uses the lack of records from Plaintiff's
treating physician to give his opinion "little weight." Despite this clear legal error, the
Commissioner contends that the ALJ completed "a comprehensive review of the record
as a whole" and commends the ALJ's "thorough decision." ECF No. 14 at 7, 9. The
Commissioner further relegates his response to this legal error to a footnote, summarily
contending that ALJs have no obligation to "discuss every medical finding." Id. at 9. The
Commissioner misapprehends Plaintiff's argument. The pertinent point is that the ALJ
discounted Plaintiff's treating physician's opinion "[w]hen considering the frequency of
office visits." ECF No. 9-2 at 26. This was factually erroneous and legally erroneous
under the relevant regulations. The Court makes no finding as to whether this was a
deliberate omission or simple oversight but notes a disturbing number of cases where
ALJs go to great lengths to justify giving little weight to the opinions of treating physicians
while giving great weight to the opinions of consultative examiners.
2
Therefore, the Commissioner’s decision is REVERSED and the Court remands
this matter to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Donald C. Coggins, Jr.
United States District Judge
September 10, 2019
Spartanburg, South Carolina
3
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?