Beverlin v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
15
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND REMANDING CIVIL ACTION TO COMMISSIONER: Granting 9 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Sylvia E. Beverlin; Denying 11 MOTION for S ummary Judgment filed by Commissioner of Social Security; Adopting 14 Report and Recommendations re 1 Complaint filed by Sylvia E. Beverlin. This civil action is remanded to the Commisioner; and Clerk is directed to enter Judgment pursuant to FRCP 58. Parties have waived right to seek appellate review. Signed by Senior Judge Frederick P. Stamp, Jr on 1/8/16. (soa)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
SYLVIA E. BEVERLIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No. 5:15CV15
(STAMP)
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner
of Social Security,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND REMANDING
CIVIL ACTION TO COMMISSIONER
I.
Procedural History
The plaintiff, Sylvia E. Beverlin, filed an application for
Disability Insurance Benefits under Title II of the Social Security
Act.
In the application, the plaintiff alleged disability since
December 8, 2008 due to degenerative disc disease, inflammatory
arthritis with Reynauld’s syndrome, type-two diabetes mellitus, and
obesity.
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 her own behalf, as
did a vocational expert.
The ALJ issued a decision finding that
the plaintiff was not disabled under the Social Security Act but
instead found that the plaintiff had a Residual Functional Capacity
to perform light-level work.
Further, the ALJ found that the
plaintiff was able to perform her past relevant work.
plaintiff’s benefits were again 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.
States
Magistrate
Judge
The case was referred to United
Michael
John
Aloi
for
submission
of
proposed findings of fact and recommendation for disposition under
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
judgment.
Both parties filed motions for summary
After consideration of those motions, the magistrate
judge entered a report recommending that the plaintiff’ motion for
summary judgment be granted, and that this action be remanded to
the Commissioner for further action.
Upon submitting his report,
Magistrate Judge Aloi 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 that the ALJ erred by not affording
sufficient weight to her treating physicians’ opinions, and by
finding that she did not meet two medical listings.
Magistrate
Judge Aloi concluded that the ALJ erred in not considering the
opinion of Dr. Cherry Lobaton, M.D., one of the plaintiff’s
treating physicians.
He also concluded that substantial evidence
supported the ALJ’s decision to give little weight to the opinion
of Dr. Michael M. Rezaian, M.D.,
another of the plaintiff’s
treating physicians, and the ALJ’s conclusion that the plaintiff
did not meet the criteria for impairment listings 14.09 and 1.04
located in 20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpt. P, app’x 1.
First,
Magistrate
Judge
Aloi
concluded
that
substantial
evidence supported the ALJ’s decision to afford little weight to
Dr. Rezaian’s opinion.
The magistrate judge properly noted that a
treating physician’s opinion is typically entitled to great weight
3
unless persuasive evidence rebuts it.
514, 517 (4th Cir. 1987).
Coffman v. Bowen, 829 F.2d
Although Dr. Rezaian used acceptable
medical techniques, his opinion was inconsistent with his own
treatment notes and the consulting physicians’ opinions. Thus, the
magistrate
judge
properly
sufficient
reasoning,
concluded
supported
by
that
the
substantial
ALJ
provided
evidence,
for
affording Dr. Rezaian’s opinion little weight.
Second, the magistrate judge concluded that the ALJ erred in
failing to consider Dr. Lobaton’s opinion.
An ALJ must “evaluate
every medical opinion” received. 20 CFR § 404.1527(c).
The ALJ
failed to even mention Dr. Lobaton’s opinion, let alone consider
what weight it should be afforded.
correctly
noted
that
Dr.
Magistrate Judge Aloi also
Lobaton’s
opinion
regarding
the
plaintiff’s ability to work would not be entitled to controlling
weight.
However,
Dr.
Lobaton’s
treatment
notes
and
medical
opinions were still relevant, and the ALJ’s failure to even address
them was erroneous. Thus, the magistrate judge correctly concluded
that this Court is unable to determine whether the ALJ’s decision
was supported by substantial evidence because the ALJ failed to
address relevant evidence.
See Gordon v. Schweiker, 725 F.2d 231,
235 (4th Cir. 1984).
Third,
the
magistrate
judge
concluded
that
substantial
evidence supported the ALJ’s conclusion that the plaintiff did not
meet the criteria set out in impairment listing 14.09.
4
Dr.
Rezaian’s opinion provided that the plaintiff was able to carry out
daily activities, could ambulate effectively, and could perform
gross movements.
The plaintiff’s own testimony about her daily
habits supported these opinions.
Therefore, the ALJ’s conclusion
was supported by substantial evidence.
Fourth, Magistrate Judge Aloi concluded that substantial
evidence supported the ALJ’s conclusion that the plaintiff did not
meet the criteria set out in impairment listing 1.04.
physicians’
opinions
found
a
limited
rang
of
None of the
motion
in
the
plaintiff’s spine or motor loss as required in the listing.
Therefore,
the
ALJ’s
conclusion
was
supported
by
substantial
evidence.
IV.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, this Court finds that the
magistrate judge’s recommendation is not clearly erroneous and
AFFIRMS and ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation
(ECF No. 14).
Accordingly, the plaintiff’s motion for summary
judgment (ECF No. 9) is GRANTED, and the defendant’s motion for
summary judgment (ECF No. 11) is DENIED.
It is further ORDERED
that this case be REMANDED to the Commissioner for further action
in accordance with this order.
Finally, this Court finds that the parties were properly
advised by the magistrate judge that failure to timely object to
the report and recommendation in this action would result in a
5
waiver of appellate rights.
Because the parties failed to object,
they have waived their right to seek appellate review of this
matter.
See Arn, 474 U.S. at 148-53.
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
Procedure 58, the Clerk is directed to enter judgment on this
matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:
January 8, 2016
/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?