Hardman v. Commissioner Social Security Administration
Filing
14
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING 13 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE. The Defendant's 10 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. The Plaintiff's 8 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. It is further O RDERED that this case be REMANDED to the Commissioner for further action in accordance with this order. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment on this matter. Signed by Senior Judge Frederick P. Stamp, Jr on 3/17/2015. (copy to counsel via CM/ECF)(lmm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
JEFFREY SCOTT HARDMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No. 5:14CV132
(STAMP)
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I.
Background
The plaintiff, Jeffrey Scott Hardman, filed an application for
Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) under Title II of the Social
Security Act. In the application, the plaintiff alleged disability
since July 21, 2005 due to “constant left side head pain.”
The
Social Security Administration denied the plaintiff’s application
initially and on reconsideration.
The plaintiff requested a
hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), and a hearing
was held at which the plaintiff was represented by counsel.
At the hearing, the plaintiff testified on his own behalf, as
did a vocational expert.
The ALJ issued a decision finding that
the plaintiff was not disabled under the Social Security Act.
The
ALJ found that the plaintiff’s severe impairments were headaches
and degenerative disc disease of the cervical and lumbar spine.
Further, the ALJ found that the plaintiff was unable to perform any
past relevant work. However, the ALJ found that there were jobs in
the national economy that the plaintiff could perform.
plaintiff’s benefits were denied.
Thus, the
The plaintiff then timely filed
an appeal of the decision to the Appeals Council.
The Appeals
Council denied the plaintiff’s request for review.
The plaintiff then filed a request for judicial review of the
ALJ’s decision in this Court.
The case was referred to United
States Magistrate Judge John S. Kaull for submission of proposed
findings of fact and recommendation for disposition pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
motions
for
summary
Both the plaintiff and the defendant filed
judgment.
After
consideration
of
those
motions, the magistrate judge entered a report and recommendation
recommending that the defendant’s motion for summary judgment be
denied, the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be granted, and
that this action be remanded to the Commissioner for further
action.
Upon
submitting
his
report,
Magistrate
Judge
Kaull
informed the parties that if they objected to any portion of his
proposed findings of fact and recommendation for disposition, they
must file written objections within 14 days after being served with
a copy of the report.
The magistrate judge further informed the
parties that failure to timely object would result in a waiver of
the right to appeal a judgment resulting from the report and
recommendation.
Neither party filed objections.
2
II.
Applicable Law
As there were no objections filed to the magistrate judge’s
recommendation, his findings and recommendation will be upheld
unless they are “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”
28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(A). Additionally, because no party filed objections to
the report and recommendation, the parties waived their right to
appeal from a judgment of this Court based thereon. Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140, 148-53 (1985).
III.
Discussion
The plaintiff argues in his motion for summary judgment that
the ALJ (1) failed to consider all of the plaintiff’s severe
impairments in her Step Three evaluation; (2) failed to properly
evaluate the plaintiff’s depression; and (3) failed to evaluate the
medical expert opinions available in the record. In her motion for
summary
judgment,
the
defendant
asserts
evidence
supports
the
Commissioner’s
that
final
(1)
substantial
decision
that
the
plaintiff is not entitled to disability benefits; (2) substantial
evidence
supports
the
ALJ’s
evaluation
at
Step
Two
of
the
plaintiff’s depression; and (3) the ALJ properly weighed and
considered the medical expert opinions.
An ALJ’s findings will be upheld if supported by substantial
evidence.
See Milburn Colliery Co. v. Hicks, 138 F.3d 524, 528
(4th Cir. 1998). Substantial evidence is that which a “‘reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’”
3
Hays v.
Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453, 1456 (4th Cir. 1990) (quoting Richardson
v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971)).
Magistrate Judge Kaull
found that substantial evidence did not exist to support the ALJ’s
conclusions as to the analysis at Step Three.
Thus, Magistrate
Judge Kaull determined that the plaintiff’s other two assertions
did not require review because this action must be remanded based
on the ALJ’s insufficient analysis at Step Three.
As noted by the magistrate judge, the ALJ must identify the
relevant listings and then compare each of the listed criteria to
the evidence of the claimant’s symptoms at Step Three of the
sequential evaluation.
Cook v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 1168, 1173 (4th
Cir. 1986). This Court has further held that an ALJ’s finding will
not be upheld if the ALJ “simply restates verbatim the language of
[the relevant listings].”
Warner v. Barnhart, Civil Action No.
1:04–CV–8, p. 7–9, 11 (Final Order of J. Stamp filed Mar. 29,
2005).
The magistrate judge found that in this case, the ALJ had
simply stated that the plaintiff’s impairments did not meet any of
the listings and did not provide any analysis to support such a
conclusion.
Further, the magistrate judge considered that the ALJ
did not mention, at all, the listings in her discussion of the
subsequent
steps
of
the
sequential
evaluation.
Thus,
the
magistrate judge found that the ALJ had not met the requirements of
Cook as she had not made her decision “in accordance with certain
4
procedures which facilitate judicial review.”
Cook, 783 F.2d at
1172. The magistrate judge therefore found that the ALJ’s decision
was more deficient than that in Warner.
This Court has reviewed the record, as well as the parties’
motions for summary judgment and, for the reasons set forth in the
report and recommendation and finding no clear error, concurs with
the magistrate judge that the defendant’s motion for summary
judgment should be denied, the plaintiff’s motion for summary
judgment should be granted, and the case be remanded for the ALJ to
perform a sufficient analysis of Step Three of the sequential
evaluation.
Accordingly,
the
magistrate
judge’s
report
and
recommendation is affirmed and adopted in its entirety.
IV.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, this Court finds that the
magistrate judge’s recommendation is not clearly erroneous and
hereby AFFIRMS and ADOPTS the report and recommendation of the
magistrate judge.
DENIED.
It
is
The defendant’s motion for summary judgment is
The plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.
further
ORDERED
that
this
case
be
REMANDED
to
the
Commissioner for further action in accordance with this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Clerk is directed to transmit a copy of this order to
counsel of record herein.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
5
Procedure 58, the Clerk is directed to enter judgment on this
matter.
DATED:
March 17, 2015
/s/ Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.
FREDERICK P. STAMP, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
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?