Mathias v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 22

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 20 ] AND REMANDING CASE TO COMMISSIONER: The Court: 1) ADOPTS the R&R (Dkt. No. 20 ); 2) GRANTS in PART Mathias's Motion for Summary Judgment to the extent it requests remand for further pr oceedings and DENIES as MOOT his additional arguments (Dkt. No. 10 ); 3) DENIES as MOOT Mathias's Motion for Permission to Include Evidence Omitted (Dkt. No. 9 ); 4) GRANTS in PART the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment to the extent it requests remand for further consideration rather than a reversal for benefits (Dkt. No. 17 ); 5) VACATES the decision of the Commissioner under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); and 6) REMANDS this case to the Commissioner for f urther proceedings consistent with this decision and the directives contained in the R&R. The Court further DIRECTS that this case be STRICKEN from the active docket. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to enter a separate judgment order. Signed by Senior Judge Irene M. Keeley on 7/18/2018. (wrr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
JOSHUA SHANE MATHIAS,
Plaintiff,
v.

//

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17CV92
(Judge Keeley)

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Deputy
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
[DKT. NO. 20] AND REMANDING CASE TO COMMISSIONER
On

May

19,

2017,

the

plaintiff,

Joshua

Shane

Mathias

(“Mathias”), filed a complaint against the defendant, the Deputy
Commissioner of Social Security (“the Commissioner”) (Dkt. No. 1).
Mathias sought review of the Commissioner’s final decision denying
his application for a period of disability and Disability Insurance
Benefits (“DIB”) due to multiple sclerosis, a spinal disorder,
obstructive sleep apnea, a cognitive disorder, depression, and
anxiety. Id. at 1-2. According to Mathias, the Commissioner’s
decision was “neither supported by substantial evidence nor based
upon a correct application of the law.” Id. at 2. The Commissioner
answered the complaint and filed the administrative record on July
24, 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.

MATHIAS V. BERRYHILL

1:17CV92

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
[DKT. NO. 20] AND REMANDING CASE TO COMMISSIONER
In a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) dated July 3, 2018,
Magistrate Judge Aloi recommended that the Court grant in part
Mathias’s

motion

Commissioner’s
Commissioner’s

for

summary

motion

for

decision,

and

judgment,
summary
remand

grant

in

part

judgment,

vacate

the

for

case

the
the

further

proceedings (Dkt. No. 20). Upon careful consideration of the record
as a whole, Magistrate Judge Aloi was unable to determine whether
substantial evidence supported the denial of benefits by the
Adminstrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). Id. at 40.
More specifically, Magistrate Judge Aloi recommended remand
because information Mathias submitted to the Appeals Council, that
is the opinions of two treating physicians, was not part of the
record before the ALJ. That information was contradictory to the
ALJ’s

decision,

which

found

that

“no

treating

or

examining

physician or psychologist has identified medical signs or findings
that meet or medically equal” the severity of any impairment listed
in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. Id. at 41-42.
Magistrate Judge Aloi concluded that, as in Meyer v. Astrue, 662
F.3d 700 (4th Cir. 2011), no fact finder has made any findings as
to the treating physicians’ opinions or attempted to reconcile that
evidence with the conflicting and supporting evidence in the record

2

MATHIAS V. BERRYHILL

1:17CV92

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
[DKT. NO. 20] AND REMANDING CASE TO COMMISSIONER
and, therefore, recommended that the case be remanded for further
fact finding. Id. at 42-43 (citing Meyer, 662 F.3d at 707).
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 43. Despite receipt
of the R&R through the Court’s electronic filing system, neither
party filed timely objections to the recommendations.
“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

3

MATHIAS V. BERRYHILL

1:17CV92

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
[DKT. NO. 20] AND REMANDING CASE TO COMMISSIONER
findings. Furthermore, following a review of the R&R and the record
for clear error, the Court:
1)

ADOPTS the R&R (Dkt. No. 20);

2)

GRANTS in PART Mathias’s Motion for Summary Judgment to
the extent it requests remand for further proceedings and
DENIES as MOOT his additional arguments (Dkt. No. 10);

3)

DENIES as MOOT Mathias’s Motion for Permission to Include
Evidence Omitted (Dkt. No. 9);

4)

GRANTS in PART the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary
Judgment to the extent it requests remand for further
consideration rather than a reversal for benefits (Dkt.
No. 17);

5)

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

6)

REMANDS

this

proceedings

case

to

consistent

the
with

Commissioner
this

for

decision

further
and

the

directives contained in the R&R.
The Court further DIRECTS that this case be STRICKEN from the
active docket.
It is so ORDERED.

4

MATHIAS V. BERRYHILL

1:17CV92

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
[DKT. NO. 20] AND REMANDING CASE TO COMMISSIONER
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to enter a separate judgment order
and to transmit copies of both orders to counsel of record.
Dated: July 18, 2018.
/s/ Irene M. Keeley
IRENE M. KEELEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5