Spencer v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 12

ORDER: Based on the persuasive findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge in the R & R and the Commissioner's decision to submit no objections, the Court ADOPTS the R & R of the Magistrate Judge as the Order of 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 agency for further proceedings consistent with this Order. Since this application for disability benefits has been pe nding for over four years, the Court directs that an administrative hearing, if required, be conducted within 120 days of this Order, a decision by the Administrative Law Judge be issued within 150 days of this Order, and a final agency decision be issued within 210 days of this Order. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 1/18/23. (ltap, )

9:21-cv-03390-RMG

Date Filed 01/18/23

Entry Number 12

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Karen Spencer,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner
)
of Social Security,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No. 9:21-3390-RMG

ORDER

Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) seeking
judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying her claim
for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”). In
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 DSC, this matter was referred to
a United States Magistrate Judge for pre-trial handling. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report
and Recommendation (“R & R”) on January 6, 2023, recommending that the Commissioner’s
decision be reversed and remanded to the agency because the Administrative Law Judge failed to
adequately address and explain the findings and conclusions regarding Plaintiff’s difficulties
with her vision. (Dkt. No. 8). In particular, the Magistrate Judge found “perplexing” the
Administrative Law Judge’s reliance on a March 2019 opinion of a treating physician, Dr.
Robinson, that Plaintiff’s cataracts were not then significantly impacting the patient’s quality of
life, over a June 2020 evaluation by another treating physician, Dr. Iverson, that Plaintiff’s
cataracts were producing low vision in both eyes. The Magistrate Judge noted the progressive
nature of cataracts could explain the worsening assessment of Plaintiff’s vision, which was then
confirmed by a September 2020 reassessment by Dr. Robinson, where he then concluded that the
-1-

9:21-cv-03390-RMG

Date Filed 01/18/23

Entry Number 12

Page 2 of 4

cataracts were potentially “a major cause of vision loss.” (Id. at 12). Despite the fact that Dr.
Robinson’s opinion had “flipped” in his September 2020 evaluation, the Administrative Law
Judge relied on Dr. Robinson’s March 2019 opinion. (Id. at 12). It is also notable that even with
the deficient assessment of Plaintiff’s vision loss, the Administrative Law Judge found Plaintiff’s
other multiple severe impairments limited her to only sedentary work, the lowest level of
function of a claimant can be classified and not be deemed disabled. The Commissioner has
advised the Court she does not intend to file objections to the R & R of the Magistrate Judge.
(Dkt. No. 10).
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)(1).
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. Vitek v. Finch, 438 F.2d 1157, 1157 (4th Cir.
1971).

-2-

9:21-cv-03390-RMG

Date Filed 01/18/23

Entry Number 12

Page 3 of 4

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).
Based on the persuasive findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge in the R & R
and the Commissioner’s decision to submit no objections, the Court ADOPTS the R & R of the
Magistrate Judge as the Order of 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 agency for
further proceedings consistent with this Order. Since this application for disability benefits has
been pending for over four years, the Court directs that an administrative hearing, if required, be
conducted within 120 days of this Order, a decision by the Administrative Law Judge be issued
within 150 days of this Order, and a final agency decision be issued within 210 days of this
Order.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Richard Mark Gergel
Richard Mark Gergel
United States District Judge
Charleston, South Carolina
January 18, 2023

-3-

9:21-cv-03390-RMG

Date Filed 01/18/23

Entry Number 12

Page 4 of 4