Dix v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 17

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS The court chooses not to adopt the Report and Recommendation and instead REMANDS this action to the Magistrate Judge for further analysis consistent with this order and the issuance of a new Report and Recommendation in light of Meyer v. Astrue. Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on 01/31/2012. (jbry, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
BEAUFORT DIVISION
Jerry A. Dix,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
)
Commissioner of Social Security,
)
)
Defendant.
)
______________________________)

Civil Action No. 9:10-2626-TLW
ORDER

Plaintiff has brought this action to obtain judicial review of a final decision of the Defendant,
Commissioner of Social Security, denying his claims for Disability Insurance Benefits. This matter
is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“the Report”) filed by United
States Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant, to whom this case had previously been assigned pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(a), (D.S.C.). In the Report, the
Magistrate Judge recommends that the Commissioner’s decision be reversed under sentence four of
42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and the case be remanded to the Commissioner for further administrative action
as outlined in the Report. The Report was filed on October 4, 2011. The Commissioner filed
objections on October 20, 2011, and also filed a notice of supplemental authority on December 12,
2011. This matter is ripe for review.
In conducting this review, the Court applies the following standard:
The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to which any party
may file written objections. . . . The Court is not bound by the recommendation of the
magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the final determination. The
Court is required to make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or
specified findings or recommendation as to which an objection is made. However,
1

the Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual
or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the Report and
Recommendation to which no objections are addressed. While the level of scrutiny
entailed by the Court's review of the Report thus depends on whether or not
objections have been filed, in either case, the Court is free, after review, to accept,
reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge's findings or recommendations.
Wallace v. Housing Auth. of the City of Columbia, 791 F.Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citations
omitted).
In light of this standard, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the Report and the objections
thereto. In his initial objections, defendant asserts that (1) the Report improperly reviewed a nonfinal decision; (2) the Report improperly relies on inapposite case law; and (3) that Dr. Nelson’s
opinion was cumulative of evidence in the record and already considered by the ALJ, such that it was
immaterial and would not require a remand. Defendant also asked that this case be held in abeyance
pending the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Meyer v.Astrue, which involved the question of whether
the Appeals Council must articulate reasons for a denial of review. The Fourth Circuit decided
Meyer v. Astrue on December 2, 2011. Meyer v. Astrue, 662 F.3d 700 (4th Cir.). Thereafter
Defendant filed a notice of supplemental authority and asserts that remand in this case is improper
in light of the decision in Meyer.
In the pending Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommends a remand
based primarily on the Appeals Council's failure to articulate a reason for denying review of the
ALJ's decision. The pending report analyzes this issue in great detail. In Meyer v. Astrue, decided
after the Magistrate Judge filed his Report, the Fourth Circuit held that the Appeals Council is not
required to articulate its rationale for denying a request for review. Id. at 707. The Fourth Circuit then
stated when the Appeals Council receives additional evidence and denies review, the issue for the
court is whether the ALJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence. Id. Further, the court held
2

that when the evidence is one-sided, the court may be able to determine whether substantial evidence
supports the ALJ's decision. Id. In Meyer, however, the court held it could not determine whether
substantial evidence supported the ALJ's decision and thus remanded the case to the Commissioner
for a rehearing. Id.
In this case, the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, filed prior to Meyer, is primarily based
upon his conclusion that the Appeals Council should have articulated a reason for denying review.
In light of that conclusion, the Magistrate Judge did not analyze whether substantial evidence in the
record supports the ALJ's decision. In light of Meyer, the matter is remanded to the Magistrate Judge
for further analysis as to whether remand is still recommended.
For the foregoing reasons, the court chooses not to adopt the Report and Recommendation
and instead REMANDS this action to the Magistrate Judge for further analysis consistent with this
order and the issuance of a new Report and Recommendation in light of Meyer.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Terry L. Wooten
TERRY L. WOOTEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

January 31, 2012
Florence, SC

3