Mead v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 9

OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING 8 Report and Recommendation granting in part and denying in part 4 Plaintiff's Motion for Order Reversing the Decision of the Commissioner, denying 5 Defendant's Motion for Order Affirming the Decision of the Commissioner, and remanding this matter for further proceedings and a new decision. Signed by Chief Judge Christina Reiss on 3/21/2014. (pac)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
20! 4t~f\R 21
DISTRICT OF VERMONT

SUSAN MEAD,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROL YN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

PH 4: 33

Case No.5: 13-cv-71

OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
(Docs. 4, 5, & 8)
This matter came before the court for a review of the Magistrate Judge's January
8,2014 Report and Recommendation ("R & R"). Plaintiff has filed a motion to reverse
the decision of the commissioner. (Doc. 4.) Defendant opposes the motion and has filed
a motion for order affirming the decision of the commissioner. (Doc. 5.) Neither party
has objected to the R & R, and the deadline for doing so has expired.
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 seventeen page R & R, the Magistrate Judge carefully reviewed the factual
record and the motions before the court and determined that among other things, the
Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") did not follow the treating physician rule and did not
make a proper determination of Plaintiffs residual functional capacity. He recommends
that the case be remanded for a new decision using the proper legal standards. The
Magistrate Judge further recommended that "on remand, after conducting a new analysis
of the medical opinions, ... the ALJ should reassess [Ms.] Mead's credibility." (Doc. 8
at 15.) The Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiffs request for a remand solely for the
calculation of benefits because a determination that Plaintiff was disabled during the
relevant time period is not inevitable if the correct legal standards are applied. Neither
party has objected to the Magistrate Judge's recommendations which the court finds wellreasoned.
For the foregoing reasons, the court hereby ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's
R & R as the court's Order and Opinion, and GRANTS IN PART Plaintiffs motion to
reverse decision of the commissioner, DENIES the Defendant's motion for order
affirming the decision of the commissioner, and REMANDS this matter for further
proceedings and a new decision.
SO ORDERED.
Dated at Rutland, in the District of Vermont, this

21 sf day of March, 2014.

/s/ Christina Reiss
Christina Reiss, Chief Judge
United States District Court

2