Spinks v. Astrue

Filing 21

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ; adopting Report and Recommendations re 18 Report and Recommendations. The Report and Recommendation is adopted in it entirely. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Clark Waddoups on 8/23/12. (jmr)

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION

RICKY L. SPINKS
Plaintiff,

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

vs.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE

Case No. 2:12-cv-45

Defendant,

In this case the Plaintiff Ricky L. Spinks asks the court to reverse and remand a Social
Security Administration agency decision finding the Plaintiff disabled as of February 16, 2010,
but rejecting his claim of disability from the claimed onset date of July 21, 2008. The court
referred the case to Magistrate Judge Samuel Alba who issued a Report and Recommendation
that the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) be reversed and remanded (Dkt No.
18). The Commissioner of Social Security objected, asking the court to affirm the administrative
decision and decline to adopt the Report and Recommendation (Dkt No. 19). The Plaintiff has
responded, arguing that the court should adopt the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.
The Commissioner argues in support of his objection that the “ALJ applied the proper
standards and considered the medical opinions in light of the record as a whole” (Dkt No. 19, at
3). He further argues that the ALJ decision “sufficiently explains the weight given to opinions
from two treating physicians (Drs. Green and McCune); one consultive examining physician (Dr.

Fyans); two agency physicians who reviewed the medical evidence (Drs. Taggart and Barton);
and a physician’s assistant (PA Lott).” The Commissioner cites to the transcript at pages 26-32,
generally, and specifically to page 32 (Dkt No. 19, at 3).
In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge correctly states that the ALJ
must complete the “sequential two-step inquiry” required by Krauser v. Astrue, 638 F.3d 1324,
1330 (10th Cir. 2011). Krauser requires in step one that the ALJ make a clear finding as to
whether he is giving a physician’s opinion controlling weight. If the ALJ concludes an opinion
is not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ must in step two state how much weight he is
giving to the opinion. The Magistrate Judge found that the ALJ in this case “failed the first step
by failing to make a clear finding as to whether he was giving each physician’s opinion
controlling weight or not.” (Dkt No. 18, at 8).
The court has reviewed the record de novo. The Commissioner’s objection is not
supported by the record. The ALJ decision, as found by the Magistrate Judge, does not include
any statement of the weight the ALJ gave to any of the opinions, and specifically does not
include any statement of the opinions to which he is giving controlling weight. The ALJ
summarizes the content of the importance he gave to that content. Moreover, the ALJ makes no
statements from which the court can infer that he made the required determinations. The
Commissioner fails to provide the court with the specific statements in the record which he
contends satisfy the steps required by Krauser and his citation to the record simply includes the
entire Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law made by the ALJ. The Commissioner’s support
is not sufficient to show that the ALJ made the required analysis or that the recommendation of

2

the Magistrate Judge is not well taken.
The court concludes that the Report and Recommendation correctly states and applies the
law. The court further finds, upon de novo review, that the Report and Recommendation is fully
supported by the record. The Report and Recommendation is adopted in it entirely.
DATED this 23rd day of August, 2012
BY THE COURT:

Clark Waddoups
United States District Judge

3