Campbell v. Commissioner Of Social Security Administration
Filing
26
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING IN PART AND REJECTINGIN PART THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 25 , GRANTINGTHE PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DKT. NO. 14 , AND DENYING THE DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DKT. NO. 23 : This case is REMANDED to the Social Security Administration for furtherproceedings consistent with this Memorandum Opinion. Signed by Senior Judge Irene M. Keeley on 2/14/19. (jss)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
DAPHNIE CAMPBELL,
Plaintiff,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17CV177
(Judge Keeley)
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING IN PART AND REJECTING
IN PART THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 25], GRANTING
THE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DKT. NO. 14], AND
DENYING THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DKT. NO. 23]
On
October
(“Campbell”),
17,
filed
2017,
a
the
complaint
plaintiff,
against
Daphnie
the
Campbell
defendant,
the
Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) (Dkt. No. 1),
seeking review of the Commissioner’s final decision denying her
applications
for
Disability
Insurance
Benefits
(“DIB”)
and
Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”). After the parties filed cross
motions for summary judgment, Magistrate Judge Michael J. Aloi
issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that the
Court deny Campbell’s motion and grant the Commissioner’s motion,
finding
that
the
Commissioner’s
decision
denying
Campbell’s
applications was supported by substantial evidence (Dkt. No. 25).
For the reasons that follow, the Court ADOPTS IN PART AND REJECTS
IN PART the R&R (Dkt. No. 25), GRANTS Campbell’s motion (Dkt. No.
14), and DENIES the Commissioner’s motion (Dkt. No. 23).
CAMPBELL V. COMMISSIONER
1:17CV177
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING IN PART AND REJECTING
IN PART THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 25], GRANTING
THE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DKT. NO. 14], AND
DENYING THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DKT. NO. 23]
I. BACKGROUND1
A.
Campbell’s Motion for Summary Judgment
On
April
2,
2018,
Campbell
filed
a
motion
for
summary
judgment, arguing that the Commissioner’s final decision denying
her applications for DIB and SSI is not supported by substantial
evidence (Dkt. Nos. 14, 15). Campbell contends that (1) the
Administrative
Law
Judge
(“ALJ”)
erroneously
evaluated
her
subjective complaints, and (2) the decision was not sufficiently
particularized to provide for meaningful review (Dkt. No. 15 at 46). Campbell also contends that the ALJ erroneously assessed her
residual functional capacity (“RFC”) by failing to consider the
combined effect of her alleged impairments, and by erroneously
exercising an expertise in neurology. Id. at 6-9. Finally, Campbell
asserts
that
the
ALJ
improperly
discounted
the
opinion
of
Campbell’s treating physician, Edward Thompson, M.D. Id. at 10-12.
B.
Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment
The Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment contends that
the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence (Dkt. Nos.
1
Because the R&R contains a thorough recitation of the relevant
facts and procedural history, the Court need not repeat it here.
2
CAMPBELL V. COMMISSIONER
1:17CV177
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING IN PART AND REJECTING
IN PART THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 25], GRANTING
THE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DKT. NO. 14], AND
DENYING THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DKT. NO. 23]
23, 24). In support, the Commissioner submits that the ALJ properly
evaluated Campbell’s subjective complaints against the medical
evidence of record (Dkt. No. 24), and appropriately assessed
Campbell’s RFC by considering the effects of her physical and
mental impairments and by discounting Dr. Thompson’s opinion. Id.
8-9. The Commissioner did not respond to Campbell’s argument that
the ALJ exercised an expertise she did not possess. See generally
id.
C.
Report and Recommendation
In the R&R filed on January 7, 2019, Magistrate Judge Aloi
concluded that the ALJ had properly weighed Campbell’s subjective
complaints against the medical evidence of record and appropriately
accorded little weight to the statement of Dr. Thompson, Campbell’s
treating physician (Dkt. No. 25 at 29-39). He next concluded that
it was harmless error for the ALJ to have
exercised an expertise
in neurology she did not possess. Id. at 39. Finally, he reasoned
that the ALJ had properly weighed the medical evidence when
determining whether Campbell’s impairments were severe. Id. at 3941.
3
CAMPBELL V. COMMISSIONER
1:17CV177
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING IN PART AND REJECTING
IN PART THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 25], GRANTING
THE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DKT. NO. 14], AND
DENYING THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DKT. NO. 23]
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
When reviewing a magistrate judge’s R&R, the Court must review
de novo only the portions to which an objection is timely made. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). On the other hand, “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)). Courts will uphold those
portions of a recommendation to which no objection has been made
unless they are “clearly erroneous.” See Diamond v. Colonial Life
& Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
III. APPLICABLE LAW
Summary
judgment
is
appropriate
only
“if
the
pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,
together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine
issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). When ruling
on a motion for summary judgment, the Court reviews all the
evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.
Miller, 913 F.2d at 1087. The Court must avoid weighing the
4
CAMPBELL V. COMMISSIONER
1:17CV177
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING IN PART AND REJECTING
IN PART THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 25], GRANTING
THE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DKT. NO. 14], AND
DENYING THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DKT. NO. 23]
evidence or determining its truth and limit its inquiry solely to
a determination of whether genuine issues of triable fact exist.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986).
The moving party bears the initial burden of informing the
Court
of
the
basis
for
the
motion
and
of
establishing
the
nonexistence of genuine issues of fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Once the moving party has made the
necessary showing, the non-moving party “must set forth specific
facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Anderson,
477 U.S. at 256 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
The “mere existence of a scintilla of evidence” favoring the nonmoving party will not prevent the entry of summary judgment; the
evidence
must
be
such
that
a
rational
trier
of
fact
could
reasonably find for the nonmoving party. Id. at 248–52.
IV. DISCUSSION
After reviewing the R&R for clear error, the Court concludes
that, even though the ALJ properly evaluated Campbell’s subjective
complaints of pain and did not err in discounting the physician
statement of Dr. Thompson, she failed to consider the combined
effects of Campbell’s physical impairments and improperly exercised
5
CAMPBELL V. COMMISSIONER
1:17CV177
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING IN PART AND REJECTING
IN PART THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 25], GRANTING
THE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DKT. NO. 14], AND
DENYING THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DKT. NO. 23]
an expertise in neurology she did not possess. Accordingly, the
Commissioner’s final decision denying Campbell’s applications for
DIB and SSI is not supported by substantial evidence.
A.
The ALJ Properly Evaluated Campbell’s Subjective Complaints
and Discounted Dr. Thompson’s Physician Statement
Neither party objected to Magistrate Judge Aloi’s conclusions
that the ALJ properly evaluated Campbell’s subjective complaints
against the medical evidence of record and did not err in according
little weight to Dr. Thompson’s physician statement (Dkt. No. 25 at
29-39).
Finding
no
clear
error,
the
Court
ADOPTS
these
recommendations.
B.
The ALJ Did Not Consider the Combined Effects of Campbell’s
Physical Impairments
“It is axiomatic that disability may result from a number of
impairments which, taken separately, might not be disabling, but
whose total effect, taken together, is to render claimant unable to
engage in substantial gainful activity.” Walker v. Brown, 889 F.2d
47, 50 (4th Cir. 1989). Recognizing this principle, the Fourth
Circuit has repeatedly “held that in evaluating the effective of
various
impairments
Secretary
must
upon
consider
a
disability
the
combined
6
benefit
effect
of
claimant,
a
the
claimant's
CAMPBELL V. COMMISSIONER
1:17CV177
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING IN PART AND REJECTING
IN PART THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 25], GRANTING
THE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DKT. NO. 14], AND
DENYING THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DKT. NO. 23]
impairments
and
not
fragmentize
them.”
Id.
(emphasis
added)
(compiling cases); see also Hines v. Bowen, 872 F.3d 56, 59 (4th
Cir. 1989) (“Congress explicitly requires that ‘the combined effect
of all the individual’s impairments’ be considered, ‘without regard
to whether any such impairment if considered separately’ would be
sufficiently severe.”). “As a corollary to this rule, the ALJ must
adequately explain his or her evaluation of the combined effects of
the impairments.” Walker, 889 F.2d at 50 (citing Reichenbach v.
Heckler, 808 F.2d 309, 312 (4th Cir. 1985)).
Here, the ALJ’s analysis of Campbell’s alleged impairments
plainly falls short of her obligation to consider the combined
effect of a claimant’s impairments because she only considered the
combined effect of Campbell’s alleged mental impairments but failed
to consider the combined effect of Campbell’s alleged physical
impairments (Dkt. No. 9-2 at 33-35). Because the ALJ fragmentized
Campbell’s alleged impairments and failed to consider the combined
effect of her alleged physical impairments, substantial evidence
does
not
support
the
Commissioner’s
Campbell’s applications for DIB and SSI.
7
final
decision
denying
CAMPBELL V. COMMISSIONER
1:17CV177
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING IN PART AND REJECTING
IN PART THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 25], GRANTING
THE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DKT. NO. 14], AND
DENYING THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DKT. NO. 23]
C.
The ALJ Improperly Exercised an Expertise in Neurology
Neither party objected to Magistrate Judge Aloi’s conclusion
that the ALJ committed harmless error when she improperly exercised
an expertise in neurology she did not possess (Dkt. No. 25 at 2939). Finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS this recommendation
because, even absent the ALJ’s self-declared medical conclusion,
substantial evidence supports her residual functional capacity
determination (Dkt. No. 9-2 at 34-37).
Nevertheless, inasmuch as the ALJ is not a trained medical
professional, on remand she should be careful not to interpret the
results of Campbell’s electroencephalograms. See Wilson v. Heckler,
743 F.2d 218, 221 (4th Cir. 1984) (“[T]he ALJ erroneously exercised
an
expertise
he
did
not
possess
in
the
field
of
orthopedic
medicine.”); Casstevens v. Astrue, No. 1:07CV657, 2009 WL 1383313,
at *4 (M.D.N.C. May 14, 2009) (“[T]he ALJ’s interpretation of
Plaintiff’s MRI requires medical knowledge and training that she
does not possess.”).
V. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed, the Court ADOPTS IN PART AND
REJECTS IN PART the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 25), GRANTS
8
CAMPBELL V. COMMISSIONER
1:17CV177
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING IN PART AND REJECTING
IN PART THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 25], GRANTING
THE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DKT. NO. 14], AND
DENYING THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DKT. NO. 23]
Campbell’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 14), and DENIES
the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 23). This
case is REMANDED to the Social Security Administration for further
proceedings consistent with this Memorandum Opinion.
It is so ORDERED.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to transmit copies of this Order
to counsel of record and all appropriate agencies.
DATED: February 14, 2019.
/s/ Irene M. Keeley
IRENE M. KEELEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9
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?