From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Horton v. Barnhart

United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Beaumont Division
Jan 28, 2005
No. 1:03-CV-222 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 28, 2005)

Opinion

No. 1:03-CV-222.

January 28, 2005


ORDER SUSTAINING OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION


The court referred this matter to the Honorable Earl S. Hines, United States Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this court. The Magistrate Judge submitted a report that recommends that the decision of the Commissioner be affirmed.

Plaintiff filed timely objections to the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation. The court, therefore, must conduct a de novo review of the objections in relation to the pleadings and the applicable law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b).

The Magistrate Judge determined that the Commissioner's decision reflects several legal errors and other deficiencies. However, the Magistrate Judge concluded that none warranted reversal. Judicial Review is, as the Magistrate Judge noted, limited to determine whether the Commissioner applied proper legal standards and whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence. See Leggett v. Chater, 67 F3d 558, 564 (5th Cir. 1995); Anthony v. Sullivan, 954 F.2d 289, 292 (5th Cir. 1992). Even with such limited review, the court can not agree with the learned Magistrate Judge that the existence of the numerous errors he correctly points out can be reconciled with a finding that the Commissioner applied proper legal standards.

Such reconciliation is especially difficult where the Commissioner's brief does not directly respond to Plaintiff's arguments on some of these points. The court is not going to scour the record, and fish the seas of legal jurisprudence, in an effort to contrive explanations for the ALJ's decisions.

The legal errors are set out in detail in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [Doc. #24]. First, the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") did not consider or decide whether the combination of impairments, include the depression, was severe at stage two of the analysis. Perhaps, as suggested by the Magistrate Judge, the ALJ would have found that the alleged depression did not rise to the level of an impairment. But it is the ALJ who must initially make that determination.

Instead the ALJ simply went to stage three of the analysis and found that the depression was not "severe," and then did not consider depression further in his decision. But once there is a finding of impairment, even though not severe, the ALJ should determine whether it in combination with other impairments is of sufficient medical severity to be the basis of eligibility. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1523 (2004). In short, it simply is not clear that the ALJ and the Appeals Council have correctly applied the standards as mandated in Stone v. Heckler, 752 F.2d 1099, 1106 (5th Cir. 1985).

In this case, since the ALJ went straight to stage three, the only conclusion is that there was an implied finding that the depression was an impairment.

The second legal error identified by the Magistrate Judge is the method by which residual functions capacity was determined. The ALJ failed to discuss three of the required factors, namely Plaintiff's ability to carry, push, or pull. Again the Commissioner failed to respond, stating only that the ALJ appropriately assessed Plaintiff's residual function. The Magistrate Judge strained to find that this was not prejudicial. The court recognizes that judicial review is properly deferential to the Commissioner. However, something is wrong when a very experienced Magistrate Judge is compelled to write of:

"a shoddy, incomplete administrative transcript;"
"the Commissioner's failure to respond to points raised in Plaintiff's brief;" and
"the Commissioner's failure to enforce her own rulings" concerning the method of analysis.

The Magistrate Judge correctly noted that the gaps in the record did not deprive the Plaintiff of a meaningful appeal. Such short gaps and unintelligible comments are to be expected in an audio recording of a hearing, and the court evaluates the entire record, including all exhibits. However, their presence reinforces the need for the ALJ, who witnessed and heard the testimony, not to skip or abbreviate any of the five steps of the analysis.

The ALJ's credibility determinations, and his weighing of competing evidence are properly given great deference by the courts. But even deferential review does not require the Magistrate Judge to speculate as to proper grounds to uphold the Commissioner's decision, nor to manufacture tenuous legal arguments to support it.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's objections two and five are sustained, and the case will be remanded for reconsideration in light of all of the deficiencies addressed in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.

A final judgment will be entered remanding this case to the Commissioner.

FINAL JUDGMENT

For reasons expressed in the accompanying memorandum order, it is

ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Commissioner's decision is REVERSED. It is further

ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that this action is remanded to the Commissioner for reconsideration in accordance with applicable law.


Summaries of

Horton v. Barnhart

United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Beaumont Division
Jan 28, 2005
No. 1:03-CV-222 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 28, 2005)
Case details for

Horton v. Barnhart

Case Details

Full title:TERRY HORTON v. JO ANNE BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Beaumont Division

Date published: Jan 28, 2005

Citations

No. 1:03-CV-222 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 28, 2005)