Brooks v. Social Security Administration et al

Filing 25

ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, the Commissioner's Objections (Doc. No. 23) are OVERRULED, the R&R (Doc. No. 22) is ADOPTED, Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Record (Doc. No. 18) is GRANTED, and this case is REMANDED to the Commi ssioner under Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The Clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58. Signed by Chief Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr on 3/21/2018. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(am)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
COLUMBIA DIVISION
ROBIN ANNETTE BROOKS,
Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:16-cv-00032
CHIEF JUDGE CRENSHAW

ORDER
Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) from the Magistrate Judge
(Doc. No. 22), recommending that the Court reverse the final decision of the Commissioner and
remand the case to the Commissioner for further proceedings. The Commissioner filed timely
objections (Doc. No. 22), to which Plaintiff responded (Doc. No. 24). After a de novo review, and
for the following reasons, the Commissioner’s Objections are OVERRULED and the R&R is
ADOPTED.
The Commissioner argues that the Administrative Law Judge’s decision was within the
“allowable zone of choice.” (Doc. No. 23 at 2.) She specifically argues that the ALJ “provided
appropriate reasoning and cited substantial evidence from throughout the relevant period to
support a reasonable finding.” (Id. at 3.) She argues that the record as a whole supports the ALJ’s
finding that Plaintiff could stand for four hours in an eight hour workday is supported by substantial
evidence in the record. (Id. at 5.)
The R&R concludes finding that the ALJ’s decision was not supported by substantial
evidence. The R&R acknowledges that “[a]s long as the ALJ cited substantial, legitimate evidence

to support his factual conclusions, [courts] are not to second-guess.” (Doc. No. 22 at 16 (citing
Ulman v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 693 F.3d 709, 714 (6th Cir. 2012)). Indeed, “[i]f the ALJ’s decision
is supported by substantial evidence, then reversal would not be warranted even if substantial
evidence would support the opposite conclusion.” Ulman, 693 F.3d at 714 (quoting Bass v.
McMahon, 499 F.3d 506, 509 (6th Cir. 2007)). However, the R&R recommends reversal because,
even under this deferential standard, the ALJ cited no evidence that Plaintiff could walk for four
hours per day for five days per week, and such a conclusion is contrary to the only opinion evidence
in the record from Damon P. Dozier, M.D. (Doc. No. 22 at 16-17.) This Court agrees.
The Court overrules the Commissioner’s objections and adopts the R&R. The Court has
reviewed the record and finds that no evidence in the record that supports that Plaintiff can stand
for four hours in an eight hour workday. Remanding this case will allow the Commissioner to
develop the record as to the ongoing effects of Plaintiff’s morbid obesity and whether the
degenerative condition in Plaintiff’s right knee is worsening to the point where Plaintiff cannot
work.
For the foregoing reasons, the Commissioner’s Objections (Doc. No. 23) are
OVERRULED, the R&R (Doc. No. 22) is ADOPTED, Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the
Record (Doc. No. 18) is GRANTED, and this case is REMANDED to the Commissioner under
Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The Clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 58.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

____________________________________
WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR.
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2