Davis et al v. Commissioner, Social Security

Filing 17

ORDER ADOPTING 16 AMENDED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The Court: ADOPTS the Amended R&R 16 ; DIRECTS the Clerk to terminate the original R&R 15 ; DENIES the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment 14 ; GRANTS Davis's motio n for summary judgment 9 ; REVERSES the decision of the Commissioner; and REMANDS this case to the Commissioner for the sole purpose of calculation and award of benefits. The Clerk is directed to enter a separate judgment order. Signed by District Judge Irene M. Keeley on 8/30/2017. (kd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
SUZANNE DAWN DAVIS, Deceased, and
GRANVILLE J. DAVIS, Substituted Party,
Plaintiff,
v.

//

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16CV61
(Judge Keeley)

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING AMENDED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 16]
On

April

11,

2016,

the

plaintiff,

Granville

J.

Davis

(“Davis”), on behalf of his deceased daughter, Suzanne Dawn Davis
(“the claimant”), filed a complaint against the defendant, the
Acting Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) (Dkt. No.
1). In the complaint, Davis sought review of the Commissioner’s
final decision denying an award of Disability Insurance Benefits
(“DIB”) and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) to the claimant,
who suffered from bipolar disorder, anxiety disorder, personality
disorder,

and

polysubstance

disorder.

He

contended

that

the

decision was “neither supported by substantial evidence nor based
on a correct application of the law.” Id. at 3.1

1

Notably, this is the second time the claimant has sought judicial
review of the Commissioner’s denial of DIB and SSI. Frederick P.
Stamp, Jr., United States District Judge, remanded the claimant’s
first case on January 7, 2015, finding error in the Commissioner’s
assessment of the claimant’s credibility, as well as her use of
several medical opinions (Civil Action No. 5:14cv83, Dkt. No. 15).
The claimant died as the result of a heroin and alprazolam overdose
just days before Judge Stamp entered his decision.

DAVIS V. BERRYHILL

1:16CV61

ORDER ADOPTING AMENDED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 16]
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the local rules, the matter
was referred to the Honorable Michael J. Aloi, United States
Magistrate Judge, for initial review. On July 11, 2016, Davis filed
a motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 10). After being granted
leave to file nunc pro tunc due to an administrative error (Dkt.
No. 12), the Commissioner filed a motion for summary judgment on
August 22, 2016 (Dkt. No. 14).
In an Amended Report and Recommendation (“Amended R&R”)2 dated
August 8, 2017, Magistrate Judge Aloi recommended that the Court
grant Davis’s motion for summary judgment, deny the Commissioner’s
motion for summary judgment, reverse the Commissioner’s decision,
and remand this case to the Commissioner for the sole purpose of
calculating benefits (Dkt. No. 16). As an initial matter, he
reasoned that the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) had failed to
support his decision with substantial evidence because he had based
it “on his own lay interpretation of the medical evidence.” Id. at
40. For instance, the ALJ characterized the claimant’s mental
status examinations (“MSE”) as “normal,” but failed to explain how
particular

MSE

findings

contradicted

other

evidence

of

the

claimant’s limitations. Id. at 44. He also selectively cited

2

The Amended Report and Recommendation merely corrects a
formatting error in the original Report and Recommendation, which
caused part of the factual background to appear as a symbol (Dkt.
No. 16 at 1 n.1).
2

DAVIS V. BERRYHILL

1:16CV61

ORDER ADOPTING AMENDED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 16]
instances when the claimant reported feeling better, but failed to
acknowledge that those reports were exceptional. Id. at 46.
As a result, Magistrate Judge Aloi reasoned that the ALJ
impermissibly

had

discounted

the

opinion

of

Davis’s

treating

physician of seven years, choosing instead to credit a consultative
examiner who saw the claimant only twice. Id. at 40. Moreover, the
Amended R&R found that the ALJ improperly had discounted the
claimant’s credibility based primarily on his lay interpretation of
medical

evidence

and

her

purportedly

“significant

daily

activities.” Id. at 58-60. Noting that reopening the record would
serve

no

improperly

purpose

and

discounted

that
the

this

is

claimant’s

the

second

treating

time

the

ALJ

physician

and

credibility, Magistrate Judge Aloi recommended not only that the
Commissioner’s decision be reversed, but that the case be remanded
for the award of benefits rather than further consideration. Id. at
66-67.
The Amended R&R also informed the parties of their right to
file “written objections identifying the portions of the Report and
Recommendation to which objections are made, and the basis for such
objections.” Id. at 67. It further warned that the failure to do so
may result in waiver of the right to appeal. Id. Despite receiving
the Amended R&R through the Court’s electronic filing system,
neither party has filed any objections to the recommendations.
3

DAVIS V. BERRYHILL

1:16CV61

ORDER ADOPTING AMENDED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 16]
“The Court will review de novo any portions of the magistrate
judge’s Report and Recommendation to which a specific objection is
made . . . and the Court may adopt, without explanation, any of the
magistrate judge’s recommendations to which the prisoner does not
object.” Dellacirprete v. Gutierrez, 479 F. Supp. 2d 600, 603-04
(N.D.W. Va. 2007) (citing Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th
Cir. 1983)). Failure to file specific objections waives appellate
review of both factual and legal questions. See United States v.
Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 & n.4 (4th Cir. 1984); see also Moore v.
United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991).
Having received no objections to the R&R, the Court has no
duty to conduct a de novo review of Magistrate Judge Aloi’s
findings. Furthermore, following a review of the Amended R&R and
the record for clear error, the Court adopts the opinion of the
Magistrate Judge for the reasons discussed in the Amended R&R (Dkt.
No. 16).
In conclusion, the Court:
1)

ADOPTS the Amended R&R (Dkt. No. 16);

2)

DIRECTS the Clerk to terminate the original Report and
Recommendation (Dkt. No. 15);

3)

DENIES the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment
(Dkt. No. 14);

4)

GRANTS Davis’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 9);
4

DAVIS V. BERRYHILL

1:16CV61

ORDER ADOPTING AMENDED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 16]
5)

REVERSES the decision of the Commissioner under sentence
four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); and

6)

REMANDS this case to the Commissioner for the sole
purpose of calculation and award of benefits.

It is so ORDERED.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of
Court to enter a separate judgment order and to transmit copies of
both orders to counsel of record.
Dated: August 30, 2017.
/s/ Irene M. Keeley
IRENE M. KEELEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5