Satterfield v. Commissioner of Social Security
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND REMANDING CASE TO COMMISSIONER DKT. NO. 22 . Court ADOPTS the R&R (Dkt. No. 22); GRANTS Satterfields Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 15); DENIES the Commissioners Motion for Summary Judgment (D kt. No. 17); VACATES the decision of the Commissioner under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); and REMANDS this case to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with this decision. Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter a separate judgment order and to transmit copies of both orders to counsel of record. Signed by Senior Judge Irene M. Keeley on 2/12/2018. (copy counsel of record via CM/ECF)(jmm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
STACIE JO SATTERFIELD,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16CV221
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AND REMANDING CASE TO COMMISSIONER [DKT. NO. 22]
On November 18, 2016, the plaintiff, Stacie Jo Satterfield
(“Satterfield”), filed a complaint against the defendant, the
Acting Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) (Dkt. No.
1). Satterfield sought review of the Commissioner’s final decision
denying her application for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”)
due to degenerative disc disease from L3 - S1 and herniated/bulging
discs in her back, supraventricular tachycardia (“SVT”), severe
sciatic nerve damage in her back and legs, benign hyper tensity
syndrome affecting joints, left knee problems, depression, anxiety,
panic attacks, and bipolar disorder (Dkt. No. 7-3 at 18-19).
According to Satterfield, the Commissioner’s decision to deny her
DIB “is contrary to the law and is not supported by substantial
complaint and filed the administrative record on January 25, 2017
(Dkt. Nos. 6; 7).
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.
In a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) dated January 16, 2018,
Satterfield’s motion for summary judgment, deny the Commissioner’s
motion for summary judgment, vacate the Commissioner’s decision,
and remand this case for further proceedings (Dkt. No. 22). He
reasoned that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) had improperly
supported an adverse credibility finding with his own perception of
Satterfield’s “drug-seeking behavior,” despite the fact that there
were “medically documented independent bases to support [her]
allegations.” Id. at 46-47.
More particularly, the ALJ focused on “intuitive notions about
. . . motivation to work and drug use,” rather than address
conflicting evidence and engage in an appropriate analysis of
factors such as medication, daily activities, and work history.
Id. at 49-59. In addition, the ALJ reasoned that Satterfield’s pain
and symptoms “[were] expected to resolve to a baseline level well
within 12 months,” but provided “no citation to either medical
evidence or a medical source for this conclusion.” Id. at 60. Due
to these and other deficiencies, Magistrate Judge Aloi concluded
that the ALJ’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence
and recommended that the case be remanded.
The R&R also informed the parties of their right to file
“written objections identifying the portions of the Report and
Recommendations to which objections are made, and the basis for
such objections.” It further warned that failure to do so would
result in waiver of the right to appeal. Id. at 64-65. Despite
receiving the R&R through the Court’s electronic filing system,
neither party has filed timely objections to the recommendation.
“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 R&R and the record
for clear error, the Court:
ADOPTS the R&R (Dkt. No. 22);
GRANTS Satterfield’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt.
DENIES the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment
(Dkt. No. 17);
VACATES the decision of the Commissioner under sentence
four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); and
proceedings consistent with this decision.
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: February 12, 2018.
/s/ Irene M. Keeley
IRENE M. KEELEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?