Wright v. Colvin

Filing 21

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 9 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 13 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting in part 16 Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommend ations. The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED as to the time period from October 1, 2005 to March 1, 2010 and VACATED as to the time period beginning March 1, 2010. This case is REMANDED FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION with regard to Mr. Wright's disability rating from the Veteran's Administration and its impact on his determination of disability for the time period beginning March 1, 2010. Signed by District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen on 6/30/14 and filed on 6/30/14. (tbro)

F1LED_
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

JUN 3 0 2014

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Newport News Division
CLERK, U.S. DfSIRlCl COURT
,

NORFOLK. VA

ANTHONY WRIGHT,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil No. 4:13cv42

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

Acting Commissioner of
Social Security Administration,
Defendant.

FINAL ORDER

Plaintiff Anthony Wright brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking judicial
review of the final decision of the Social Security Commissioner ("Commissioner") denying his
claim for disability insurance benefits ("DIB") pursuant to Title II of the Social Security Act.
Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(B), Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, Rule 72 of the Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of

Virginia, and by order of reference dated June 4, 2013, this matter was referred to United States

Magistrate Judge Douglas E. Miller for a Report and Recommendation ("R&R").
In the R&R filed March 18, 2014, Magistrate Judge Miller found the decision by the

Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") denying Mr. Wright's claim unsupported by substantial
evidence, and that the ALJ would have reached a different conclusion under the new standard set

forth in Bird v. Commissioner ofSocial Security, 699 F.3d 337, 343 (4th Cir. 2012). March 18.

2014 R&R 14, ECF No. 16. Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Miller recommended denying the
Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment, granting Mr. Wright's Motion for Summary
Judgment, vacating the decision of the Commissioner, and remanding this case for further
consideration in light of Bird. Id. at 17.

By copy of the R&R, each party was advised of the right to file written objections to the
findings and recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge.

The Court received the

Commissioner's objection to the Magistrate Judge's R&R, and has considered the objection
carefully.

The Commissioner contends that the R&R is ambiguous. Commissioner's Objection 3,
ECF No. 18. The R&R acknowledges that the record establishes that Plaintiff had full-time

employment with the Veteran's Administration ("VA") from October 1, 2005 to March 1, 2010.

Id. The Commissioner contends that a finding that Plaintiff was not disabled during that time
period results from a proper application of the ALJ's analytical framework. Id.

Despite this acknowledgement, the R&R recommends that the prior decision should be
vacated and remanded for further consideration as to the entire period of claimed disability. Id.
at 2. The Commissioner contends that the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence
and should be upheld for the period from October 1, 2005 to March 1, 2010. Id. at 3.

Plaintiff agrees with the Commissioner that the proper scope of the remand is for the time

period since March 1, 2010. PL's Response to Objection 1, ECF No. 20. Amending the scope of
remand in this manner compels an affirmation of the ALJ's decision as to the time period from
October 1, 2005 to March 1, 2010.

After reviewing the record de novo, this Court agrees with the R&R that "the record

clearly establishes that Wright worked full time for the VA for five years [from October 1, 2005
to March 1, 2010] of his period of alleged disability." March 18, 2014 R&R 3, ECF No. 16.

Accordingly, based on the application of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520, the ALJ's analysis regarding the
time from of October 1, 2005 to March 1, 2010 is supported by substantial evidence. Therefore,
this Court adopts the R&R in part, and sustains the objection raised by the Commissioner and
agreed to by the Plaintiff.

After reviewing the R&R and scrutinizing the record de novo, this Court ADOPTS and

APPROVES the findings and recommendations set forth therein as to the time period beginning
March 1, 2010, but DOES NOT ADOPT the recommendations therein as to the time period

from October 1, 2005 to March 1, 2010. ECF No. 16. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED
that Mr. Wright's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 9) is DENIED IN PART as to the
time period from October 1, 2005 to March 1, 2010, and GRANTED IN PART as to the time

period beginning March 1, 2010. The Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF
No. 13) is GRANTED IN PART as to the time period from October 1, 2005 to March 1, 2010,
and DENIED IN PART as to the time period beginning March 1, 2010. The decision of the
Commissioner is AFFIRMED as to the time period from October 1, 2005 to March 1, 2010 and
VACATED as to the time period beginning March 1, 2010. This case is REMANDED FOR

FURTHER CONSIDERATION with regard to Mr. Wright's disability rating from the

Veteran's Administration and its impact on his determination of disability for the time period
beginning March 1, 2010.

The Clerk is REQUESTED to forward a copy of this Order to all parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Arenda L/WrigW/Mlcn
United States District Judge

June <^_, 2014
Norfolk, Virginia