Opinion
No. SA-04-CA-0892-RF.
June 8, 2005
ORDER OVERRULING THE MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND REMANDING FOR FURTHER FINDINGS
BEFORE THE COURT is the Memorandum and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 15), filed in the above-styled and numbered cause on April 7, 2005. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the decision of the Commissioner denying Plaintiff's application for disability benefits be affirmed if Rule 203.11 of the Medical/Vocational Guidelines was properly applied. Alternatively, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the decision of the Commissioner denying Plaintiff's application for disability benefits be reversed and that this matter be remanded to the Commissioner for an award of benefits, if Rule 203.10 of the Medical/Vocational Guidelines should have been applied. Plaintiff filed no objections to the Memorandum and Recommendation. After due consideration, the Court is unable to conclude whether Rule 203.10 or Rule 203.11 of the Medical/Vocational Guidelines applies and therefore the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to affirm the decision of the Commissioner denying plaintiff's application for supplemental security income benefits should be OVERRULED and this action should be REMANDED TO THE COMMISSIONER FOR FURTHER FINDINGS.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) seeking review of Commissioner Barnhart's determination that Plaintiff is not entitled to receive disability benefits. Plaintiff filed an application for benefits on February 2, 2002 alleging disability beginning May 20, 2003, as amended. The Social Security Administration denied the application both initially and upon reconsideration. After a hearing on May 27, 2004, an administrative law judge ("ALJ") determined that Plaintiff is not disabled. The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review, thus making the determination of the ALJ the final decision of the Commissioner. United States Magistrate Judge John Primomo reviewed the Commissioner's decision denying Plaintiff's disability benefits and recommended that, if Rule 203.11 of the Medical/Vocational Guidelines was properly applied, the decision should be affirmed. However, if Rule 203.10 of the Medical/Vocational Guidelines should have been applied, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the decision of the Commissioner denying Plaintiff disability benefits be reversed and remanded to the Commissioner for an award of benefits.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court reviews de novo a Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation if a party files specific objections within ten days of service. The Court need not consider objections that are frivolous, conclusive, or general in nature. If there are no specific objections to a Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation, the District Court is to review it for findings and conclusions that are either clearly erroneous or contrary to law. In the instant case, Plaintiff filed no specific objections to the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation, thus warranting review of the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation for findings and conclusions that are either clearly erroneous or contrary to law.ANALYSIS
A. Plaintiff's Contentions and ALJ's Findings
Plaintiff contends that the decision of the Commissioner is not supported by substantial evidence. She states that the ALJ failed to base his residual functional capacity assessment on either a credible medical opinion or reasonable inferences from other evidence in the record. Plaintiff asserts that the only medical source opinion comes from an non-examining state agency medical consultant. She also argues that the ALJ failed to fully develop the record by failing to recontact the Plaintiff's treating physician for additional information or by obtaining a consultative examination.
The ALJ found that Plaintiff is not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. The ALJ performed a five-step evaluation process and determined that Plaintiff is not disabled. The ALJ made the following findings:
Plaintiff has not performed substantial work after the alleged onset date of the disability. Plaintiff suffers diabetes and her impairment is severe, but the evidence indicates that this impairment is not severe enough to meet or medically equal a listed impairment for which she can receive disability benefits. Plaintiff's depression is not severe. Plaintiff does not have any past relevant work and is capable of performing a full range of medium work. According to Medical-Vocational Rule 203.11, there are a significant number of jobs in the national economy available to Plaintiff. Plaintiff is not disabled.
Tr. at 15
In addressing Plaintiff's contentions, The Magistrate Judge reviewed the ALJ's five-step decision-making process for denying Plaintiff's application for disability benefits. He found that Plaintiff's physician provides no evidence suggesting Plaintiff is disabled and that Plaintiff makes no suggestion that any additional medical records exist which would support her physician's opinion. He also stated that in order to obtain reversal, the Plaintiff must show that she was prejudiced as a result of the inadequacy of the administrative proceeding. The Magistrate Judge concluded that Plaintiff provided no evidence suggesting that she was prejudiced.
Docket No. 15 at 11.
Id. at 12.
B. Rule 203.10 vs. Rule 203.11
The Magistrate Judge questioned whether Rule 203.11 of the Medical/Vocational Guidelines was applied correctly. Rule 203.11 dictates a finding that a person of advanced age is not disabled if she is capable of performing work at the medium exertional level, has a limited or less education, and has previous work experience that is unskilled. Conversely, Rule 203.10 of the Medical/Vocational Guidelines dictates a finding that a person of advanced age with limited or less education and no work experience is disabled. In the instant case, the ALJ had the sole responsibility for evaluating Plaintiff's residual functional capacity based on the record as a whole. The ALJ made the following determination:
Considering the claimant's age as 55-years old at the time of the amended alleged onset date of May 20, 2003, educational background, work experience, and residual functional capacity, the Administrative Law Judge concludes she is capable of making a successful adjustment to work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy. A finding of `not disabled' is therefore reached within the framework of Medical-Vocational Rule 203.11.
Tr. p. 14.
The ALJ made several statements regarding Plaintiff's work experience. The ALJ found that Plaintiff has no previous work experience. Without more, this finding implicates Rule 203.10 which directs a finding that Plaintiff is disabled. However, the ALJ also stated that Plaintiff has "unskilled previous work." If Plaintiff has unskilled work experience, Rule 203.11 directs a finding of disabled. Furthermore, under Rule 203.00(c), if Plaintiff has no past relevant work experience, a finding of disabled is appropriate. The record includes insufficient evidence for the Court to determine whether Plaintiff is disabled because of the inconsistent findings of the ALJ that Plaintiff has both NO PREVIOUS WORK EXPERIENCE and UNSKILLED PREVIOUS WORK. After reviewing the record, the Court is unable to determine whether Rule 203.11 of the Medical/Vocational Guidelines was properly applied by the Commissioner. This Court hereby overrules the Memorandum and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and remands the matter for further findings regarding the applicability of Rule 203.10 versus Rule 203.11 of the Medical/Vocational Guidelines.
Id. at 11, 14, 15.
Id. at 14
Under Rule 203.00(c), a finding of disabled is appropriate for individuals of advanced age (55 and over) that have a limited education or less and no relevant work experience.
C. Sanctionable Conduct
The Magistrate Judge identified derogatory statements made by Plaintiff's counsel in his brief directed at the ALJ and the Social Security Administration. Such statements are inappropriate and irrelevant to the merits of the case. This Court affirms the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge to not impose sanctions at this time. However, the Court does not condone such conduct, which has no place within judicial proceedings.
Docket No. 15 at 14.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the Memorandum and Recommendation be REMANDED FOR FURTHER FINDINGS.FINAL JUDGMENT FOR REMAND
On this day the Court entered an order overruling the Memorandum and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and remanding this action for further findings in accordance with the Order issued on this day. The Court now enters its Final Judgment in accordance with Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.It is ORDERED that the Memorandum and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge be OVERRULED (Docket No. 15).
It is further ORDERED that this action be remanded to the Commissioner for further findings as required by the accompanying order.