Cassidy v. Berryhill

Filing 26

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING and incorporating the 22 Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge; the court GRANTS the plaintiff's 17 request that this matter be remanded back to the Commissioner, DENIES the defendant's [ 20] request to affirm the ALJs decision, REVERSES the final decision of the Commissioner, REMANDS this matter back to the Commissioner, and DISMISSES this action from the court's docket. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 2/26/2018. (cc: Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn; counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (kp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER CLARK CASSIDY,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-cv-03251

NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This action was referred to the Honorable Omar J. Aboulhosn, United States
Magistrate Judge, for submission to this court of proposed findings of fact and
recommendation for disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The

court

has reviewed de novo those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s findings and
recommendation to which the defendant objects and finds that the objections lack
merit. For the reasons set forth below, the court ADOPTS and incorporates herein
the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 22]. The court
GRANTS the plaintiff’s request that this matter be remanded back to the
Commissioner [ECF No. 17], DENIES the defendant’s request to affirm the ALJ’s
decision [ECF No. 20], REVERSES the final decision of the Commissioner,
REMANDS this matter back to the Commissioner, and DISMISSES this action from
the court’s docket.

I.

Statement of Facts
As explained in more depth in the PF&R, Christopher Clark Cassidy, the

claimant, applied for Title II benefits on July 19, 2013. Proposed Findings & Recom.
2 (PF&R”) [ECF No. 22]. He alleges that he became disabled on April 12, 2012,
because of “arthritis, rod and 4 screws and cage in lower back, back injury, herniated
discs, bulging discs, permanent nerve damage, depression, and insomnia.” Id. After
several administrative decisions and appeals, an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”)
entered a decision denying the claimant’s claims on April 19, 2017. Id. On June 13,
2017, the claimant timely brought the present action seeking judicial review of the
administrative decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Id.
The claimant filed a motion requesting that the court remand the case back to
the Commissioner [ECF No. 17]. The defendant filed a motion seeking judgment on
the pleadings [ECF No. 20], and the claimant filed a reply [ECF No. 21]. These briefs
are currently before the court. The Magistrate Judge submitted findings of fact and
recommended that the court grant the plaintiff’s request for judgment on the
pleadings to the extent that this matter be remanded back to the Commissioner, deny
the defendant’s request to affirm the ALJ’s decision, reverse the final decision of the
Commissioner, and remand this matter back to the Commissioner. On January 5,
2017, the defendant timely filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s findings and
recommendation.

2

II.

Standards of Review
a. Standard of Review of PF&R
In reviewing the PF&R, the Court must “make a de novo determination of

those portions of the . . . [Magistrate Judge’s] proposed findings or recommendations
to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In doing so, the Court can “accept,
reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the
magistrate judge.” Id.
b. Standard of Review of Commissioner’s Decision
The Social Security Act states that “[t]he findings of the Commissioner of
Social Security as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be
conclusive.” 42 U.S.C.A.§ 405(g) (West Supp. 1998). The Supreme Court has defined
substantial evidence as “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept
as adequate to support a conclusion.” Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971)
(quoting Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)). Further, “[i]t
consists of more than a mere scintilla of evidence but may be somewhat less than a
preponderance.” Laws v. Celebrezze, 368 F.2d 640, 642 (4th Cir. 1966).
In reviewing the case for substantial evidence, the court does not re-weigh
conflicting evidence, make determinations as to credibility, or substitute its own
judgment for that of the Commissioner. Hays v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453, 1456 (4th
Cir. 1990). Rather, the court must adopt the Commissioner’s findings if there is
evidence in support of such findings “to justify a refusal to direct a verdict were the
3

case before a jury.” Blalock v. Richardson, 483 F.2d 773, 776 (4th Cir. 1972). “Where
conflicting evidence allows reasonable minds to differ as to whether a claimant is
disabled, the responsibility for that decision falls on the [Commissioner] (or the
[Commissioner’s] designate, the ALJ).” Walker v. Bowen, 834 F.2d 635, 640 (7th Cir.
1987). Thus, even if the court would have reached a different decision, it must
nonetheless defer to the conclusions of the ALJ if such conclusions are bolstered by
substantial evidence and were reached through a correct application of relevant law.

See Coffman v. Bowen, 829 F.2d 514, 517 (4th Cir. 1987).
III.

Analysis

Here, the only objections made to the PF&R were made by the defendant. The
defendant claims that the Magistrate Judge erred in concluding that remand is
necessary for (1) further evaluation of Dr. Patel’s February 2010 opinion, and (2)
further development of the record regarding the claimant’s knee impairment. Def.’s
Objections to the Findings & Recom. of the U.S. Magistrate Judge 1–8 [ECF No. 23].
The Magistrate Judge found that remand is appropriate, in part, because the
ALJ’s valuation of Dr. Patel’s opinion was not rational. On February 10, 2010, Dr.
Patel released an opinion about the claimant’s ability to return to work. PF&R 26.
Specifically, Dr. Patel found “if he can do light duty where he can lift no more than
10 pounds and in a sedentary type position where he can sit 15 minutes and stand 15
minutes at a time, that might be an option; otherwise, I recommend he continue to
stay off work.” Id. The ALJ assigned partial weight to this opinion. Id. It should not
4

have, however, considered this opinion at all for two reasons. First, this opinion was
rendered more than two years prior to the alleged onset date. Therefore, it was not
probative as to the claimant’s present claim.
Second, Dr. Patel’s opinion directly contradicted a prior ALJ decision. In
September 2009, the claimant filed an application for a period of disability and
disability insurance benefits. Trial Tr. 76 [ECF No. 11-4]. On review, the ALJ found
the claimant to be disabled from June 6, 2009 through June 24, 2010. Id. at 76–82.
Yet, Dr. Patel found that the claimant was capable of performing sedentary type work
on February 10, 2010. Therefore, the Magistrate Judge is correct that it was
irrational for the ALJ to give any weight to Dr. Patel’s February 10, 2010 opinion for
the claimant’s current claim, and remand is necessary so that the Commissioner can
weigh the evidence without giving any weight to this opinion.
The Magistrate Judge also found that remand is necessary because “the ALJ
did not satisfy her ‘duty to explore all relevant facts and inquire into the issues
necessary for adequate development of the record.’” PF&R 30 (quoting Cook v.

Heckler, 783 F.2d 1168, 1173 (4th Cir. 1986)). The record before the ALJ showed that
the claimant sought treatment for his knees with Dr. Patel in January 2016. Id. at
29. At the time, Dr. Patel recommended that the claimant “see Dr. Witfield for
evaluation of his knees” and noted that “he might be a candidate for arthroscopic
intervention.” Id. She further noted that the claimant “has tried conservative
treatments without much relief and he is looking into disability measures which I
5

think is reasonable.” Id. She further opined that she intended to order a repeat MRI
of the claimant’s lumbar spine, and get a functional capacity evaluation to determine
what exactly the claimant was capable of doing. The magistrate judge correctly found
that the ALJ should have explored these facts and issues in order to adequately
develop the record.
IV.

Conclusion
The court ADOPTS and incorporates the findings and recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 22]. The court GRANTS the plaintiff’s request that this
matter be remanded back to the Commissioner [ECF No. 17], DENIES the
defendant’s request to affirm the ALJ’s decision [ECF No. 20], REVERSES the final
decision of the Commissioner, REMANDS this matter back to the Commissioner, and
DISMISSES this action from the court’s docket.
The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a certified copy of this Order to
Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party.

ENTER:

6

February 26, 2018