Wilson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 22

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The court adopts and incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge's R & R. [ECF #17]. Accordingly, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the Court REVERSES AND REMANDS the Commissioner's final decision for further administrative action. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 5/15/2018. (gnan )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION
Prince Wilson,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting
)
Commissioner of the Social
)
Security Administration,
)
)
Defendant.
)
______________________________)

Civil Action No.: 8:17-cv-00249-RBH

ORDER

Plaintiff Prince Wilson 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 denying his claim for disability
insurance benefits (“DIB”) and supplemental security income (“SSI”). This matter is now before the
Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) of United States Magistrate Judge
Jacquelyn D. Austin, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rules
73.02(B)(2)(a) and 83.VII.02 (D.S.C.). [ECF # 17]. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court
reverse and remand the Commissioner’s final decision for further administrative action. [ECF #17, p.
1]. On April 25, 2018, the Commissioner filed a notice that she would not be filing objections to the
R&R. [ECF #18]. This Court has thoroughly reviewed the record in this case. This Court agrees with
the Magistrate Judge that the Commissioner’s decision must be reversed and remanded consistent with
this Order.
Legal Standard
I.

Judicial Review of the Commissioner’s Findings
The federal judiciary has a limited role in the administrative scheme established by the Social

Security Act, which provides the Commissioner’s findings “shall be conclusive” if they are “supported
by substantial evidence.” 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). Substantial evidence “means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept
as adequate to support a conclusion.” Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971).
This statutorily mandated standard precludes a de novo review of the factual circumstances that
substitutes the Court’s findings for those of the Commissioner. Vitek v. Finch, 438 F.2d 1157, 1157-58
(4th Cir. 1971); Hicks v. Gardner, 393 F.2d 299, 302 (4th Cir. 1968). The Court must uphold the
Commissioner’s factual findings “if they are supported by substantial evidence and were reached
through application of the correct legal standard.” Hancock v. Astrue, 667 F.3d 470, 472 (4th Cir.
2012); see also Blalock v. Richardson, 483 F.2d 773, 775 (4th Cir. 1972) (stating that even if the Court
disagrees with the Commissioner’s decision, the Court must uphold the decision if substantial evidence
supports it). This standard of review does not require, however, mechanical acceptance of the
Commissioner’s findings. Flack v. Cohen, 413 F.2d 278, 279 (4th Cir. 1969). The Court “must not
abdicate [its] responsibility to give careful scrutiny to the whole record to assure that there is a sound
foundation for the [Commissioner]’s findings, and that [her] conclusion is rational.” Vitek, 438 F.2d
at 1157-58.
II.

The Court’s Review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the 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, 270–71 (1976). The Court must conduct a de novo review of those
portions of the R & R to which specific objections are made, and it may accept, reject, or modify, in

2

whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter with instructions.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Neither party has filed objections to the R & R, and the
time for doing so has expired.1 In the absence of objections to the R & R, the Court is not required to
give any explanation for adopting the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations. See Camby v. Davis, 718
F.2d 198, 199–200 (4th Cir. 1983). The Court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an
objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating
that “in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct 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)).
Discussion
The Magistrate Judge recommends remanding this case for further administrative action based
upon the Plaintiff’s arguments in supporting a finding that he has been disabled since January 30, 2011.
Under the five step sequential process under the Social Security Act, if a claimant can demonstrate at
Step Three that he meets the requirements for one of the listed impairments, that claimant has
established his right to disability benefits. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920. In
recommending that this case be remanded for a second time, the Magistrate Judge determined that the
ALJ’s reasons for determining that Plaintiff did not meet the qualifications for disability under Listing
12.05 were not consistent with the law, and thus, not supported by substantial evidence.2 Indeed, this
1

Objections to the R & R were due by April 27, 2018. [ECF #17]. The Commissioner filed a notice stating
she would not be filing objections. [ECF #18].

2

As the Magistrate Judge correctly pointed out, the Listings evaluating mental disorders were amended as
of January 17, 2017, pursuant to the final rule on Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Mental Disorders, 81 Fed.
Reg. 66138-01, 2016 W L 5341732 (Sept. 26, 2016). In the revision, the Social Security Administration states, “[w]e
expect that Federal courts will review our final decisions using the rules that were in effect at the time we issued the
decisions. If a court reverses our final decision and remands a case for further administrative proceedings after the
effective date of these final rules, we will apply these final rules to the entire period at issue in the decision we make

3

Court finds the ALJ’s lack of a full and adequate explanation for rejecting Plaintiff’s claim for disability
based upon this Court’s initial remand troubling. Therefore, this Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge
that remand is necessary to properly address Plaintiff’s RFC, along with Plaintiff’s other allegations
of error, including whether he meets the requirements for Listing 12.05, particularly in light of the
recent revisions to the Listings.
After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error and therefore
adopts and incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge’s R & R. [ECF #17]. Accordingly, pursuant
to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the Court REVERSES AND REMANDS the Commissioner’s
final decision for further administrative action consistent with the R & R.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Florence, South Carolina
May 15, 2018

s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge

after the court’s remand.” Id. at *66138, n. 1.

4