Farrell v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner

Filing 17

ORDER ADOPTING 16 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION granting in part 5 Motion to Reverse Decision of SSA; denying 9 Motion to Affirm Decision of Commissioner and remanding the matter for further proceedings and a new decision. Signed by Chief Judge Christina Reiss on 1/3/2012. (pam)

· U.S. Dls'rR

COUR",'

ERHOf; r

DISTRICT

ffLE:[}

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
DISTRICT OF VERMONT

2012 JAN -3 AM II: 28
CLERK

r:vM

8Y_--::-:~~::-:-:::-::::c----

DEPtH y

LAURA FARRELL,
Plaintiff,
v.

NnCHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

)

)

)

CLER~-.

Case No. 5:l0-cv-284

OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

(Docs. 5, 9 & 16)

This matter came before the court for a review of the Magistrate Judge's
November 23,2011 Report and Recommendation ("R & R") in the above-captioned
matter (Doc. 16). Neither party has objected to the R & R, and the deadline for doing so
has expired.
In this action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), Plaintiff Laura Farrell seeks review
of the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (the "Commissioner") denying
her application for disability insurance benefits. In the R & R, the Magistrate Judge
recommends granting in part Ms. Farrell's motion to reverse the Commissioner's
decision (Doc. 5) and denying the Commissioner's motion to affirm the same (Doc. 9).
A district judge must make a de novo determination of those portions of a
magistrate judge's report and recommendation to which an objection is made. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Cullen v. United States, 194 F.3d 401, 405 (2d Cir.
1999). The district judge may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings
or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); accord

Cullen, 194 F.3d at 405. A district judge, however, is not required to review the factual

or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of a report and
recommendation to which no objections are addressed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140,
150 (1985). When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there
is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation. See
Campbell v. United States Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196,206 (9th Cir. 1974), cert. denied,
419 U.S. 879 (1974).
In his twenty page R & R, the Magistrate Judge carefully reviewed the factual
record and the competing motions and determined that Administrative Law Judge
("ALJ") Robert Klingebiel erred in adjudicating Laura Farrell's claim for disability
benefits by employing the wrong standard to determine whether Ms. Farrell's
fibromyalgia is severe and by failing to consider its impact in a residual functional
capacity analysis. The Magistrate Judge recommended affirming all other aspects of the
ALl's decision. Specifically, he recommended that the court reject Ms. Farrell's
challenges and affirm: (1) the ALl's conclusions with regard to Ms. Farrell's Irritable
Bowel Syndrome; (2) the ALl's determination of Ms. Farrell's credibility; (3) the ALl's
analysis of Ms. Farrell's chiropractor's opinion; and (4) the ALl's conclusion that Ms.
Farrell's impairments did not meet or medically equal an impairment identified in the
Listings.
The court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's conclusions and hereby ADOPTS
the R & R as the Opinion and Order of this court. This case is therefore remanded for a
redetermination of Ms. Farrell's disability benefits application consistent with the rulings
set forth herein.
For the foregoing reasons, the court hereby GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN
PART Ms. Farrell's motion to reverse (Doc. 5), DENIES the Commissioner's motion for
an order affirming the ALl's decision (Doc. 9) and REMANDS this case for proceedings
consistent with this Opinion and Order.

2

SO ORDERED.
Dated at Rutland, in the District of Vermont, this

L

"d

day of January, 2012.

fistina Reiss, Chief Judge
United States District Court

3