White v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 23

ORDER The court ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge's 20 Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein. The decision of the Commissioner of Social Security Administration is REVERSED, and this case is REMANDED for further administrative action pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 08/18/2020.(hada, )

2:19-cv-01194-JMC

Date Filed 08/18/20

Entry Number 23

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
Carl Tony White,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
Andrew M. Saul, Commissioner of Social )
Security Administration,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No.: 2:19-cv-01194-JMC

ORDER

This matter is before the court for review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) filed on June 26, 2020. (ECF No. 20.) The Report addresses Plaintiff
Carl Tony White’s (“Plaintiff”) claim for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) and recommends
that the court reverse the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security Administration (“the
Commissioner”) and remand the matter for further administrative proceedings. (Id. at 15.) For the
reasons stated herein, the court ACCEPTS the Report, REVERSES the decision of the
Commissioner, and REMANDS the action for additional administrative proceedings.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The Report sets forth the relevant facts and legal standards, which this court incorporates
herein without a full recitation. (Id. at 1-11.) As brief background, the Administrative Law Judge
(“ALJ”) determined Plaintiff was not disabled for purposes of the Social Security Act (“the Act”)
and denied Plaintiff’s claim for SSI. (ECF No. 9-2 at 20.) Although the ALJ found Plaintiff has
medically determinable impairments, including a “history of a fracture of the left tibia and fibula
status post[-]surgical repair with no indication of complications; a history of Fournier’s gangrene;
hypertension; and a history of alcohol abuse,” the ALJ concluded at step two that none of
1

2:19-cv-01194-JMC

Date Filed 08/18/20

Entry Number 23

Page 2 of 4

Plaintiff’s impairments were severe. (Id. at 15.) Thereafter the Appeals Council (“the Council”)
denied Plaintiff’s request for review. (Id. at 1.) Thus, the ALJ’s decision became the final decision
of the Commissioner. (Id.) See also Meyer v. Astrue, 662 F.3d 700, 704 (4th Cir. 2011) (stating an
ALJ’s decision was the final decision of the Commissioner when the Council denied a request for
review); Higginbotham v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 332, 336 (5th Cir. 2005) (holding the
Commissioner’s “final decision” includes when the Council denies a request for review). Plaintiff
filed the instant action on April 25, 2019. (ECF No. 1.)
Subsequently, the Magistrate Judge issued the Report suggesting this case be reversed and
remanded because the ALJ’s conclusion that Plaintiff had no severe impairments was unsupported
by substantial evidence. (ECF No. 20 at 11.) Specifically, the Report found Plaintiff’s gangrene
had more than a “minimal effect” on his ability to work, and the medical record in fact supported
Plaintiff’s alleged limitations stemming from gangrene.1 (Id.) The Report similarly observed the
ALJ did not adequately explain “how Plaintiff’s [leg] fracture” amounted to only a “minimal
effect” on Plaintiff’s work ability. (Id. at 12.) Moreover, while the Report noted the ALJ properly
disregarded Plaintiff’s claim that he required a cane to walk, the Report nonetheless emphasized
the ALJ “did not otherwise explain how she discounted Plaintiff’s . . . subjective statements
regarding his general difficulty standing and lifting due to his fracture.” (Id. at 13.) The Report
then added that the assessment of severe impairments at “step [two] is typically not a difficult
hurdle for the claimant to clear.” (Id. at 14 (internal marks omitted) (citing Albright v. Comm’r of
Soc. Sec. Admin., 174 F.3d 473, 474 n.1 (4th Cir. 1999); Gaines v. Colvin, No. 0:14-cv-3363-PJG,

Plaintiff’s alleged limitations due to Fournier’s gangrene include that “(1) he can’t sit down a
long time; (2) he has problems with leakage . . . when he stands and has been referred to a specialist
to attempt to treat this issue; and (3) any heavy lifting would cause the opening in his skin to tear.”
(ECF No. 20 at 11 (citation and internal marks omitted).) The Report notes that Fournier’s
gangrene is an infection of the genitalia. (Id. at 6 fn. 1.)
1

2

2:19-cv-01194-JMC

Date Filed 08/18/20

Entry Number 23

Page 3 of 4

2016 WL 680537, at *5 (D.S.C. Feb. 19, 2016); Killian v. Colvin, No. 8:12-cv-921-MGL, 2013
WL 4853879, at *12 (D.S.C. Sept. 10, 2013)).)
Ultimately, the Report concluded the case should be remanded with instructions that the
ALJ continue her evaluation of Plaintiff’s alleged disability beyond the assessment of severe
impairments at step two. (ECF No. 20 at 14-15.)
On June 26, 2020, the parties were apprised of their opportunity to file specific objections
to the Report. (Id. at 17.) On June 30, 2020, the Commissioner informed the court he would not
offer objections. (ECF No. 21.) Plaintiff has similarly not objected to the Report.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Magistrate Judge’s Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge only makes a
recommendation to this court, and the recommendation has no presumptive weight. See Mathews
v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The responsibility to make a final determination remains
with the court. Id. at 271. As such, the court is charged with making de novo determinations of
those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). If no party offers specific objections to the
Magistrate Judge’s Report, the court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the
Report. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, “in the absence of a timely
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.”
Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (emphasis added)
(quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). Furthermore, a failure to file specific,
written objections to the Report results in a party’s waiver of the right to appeal from the judgment

3

2:19-cv-01194-JMC

Date Filed 08/18/20

Entry Number 23

Page 4 of 4

of the court based upon such recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Thus, the court may accept,
reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation or recommit the
matter with instructions. Id.
III. DISCUSSION
Here, the court has carefully examined the findings of the Report and concludes the
ALJ’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence. (ECF No. 20 at 6-16.) The
Commissioner notified the Court he will not file objections (ECF No. 21) and Plaintiff has
likewise offered no objections. The court discerns no clear error on the face of the Report.
Accordingly, the court adopts the Report herein.
IV. CONCLUSION
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court ACCEPTS the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 20) and incorporates it herein.
Therefore, the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security Administration is REVERSED,
and this case is REMANDED for further administrative action pursuant to sentence four of 42
U.S.C. § 405(g).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
August 18, 2020
Columbia, South Carolina

4