Opinion
No. 02-CV-4689
December 10, 2002
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Presently before the Court are Chief Magistrate Judge James R. Melinson's ("Judge Melinson") Report and Recommendation ("Report"), Objections to the Report filed by the Plaintiff, Donna Chamberlain ("Chamberlain"), and the response of the Defendant, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("Commissioner"), thereto. After Administrative Law Judge Paula Garrety ("Judge Garrety") concluded that Chamberlain was entitled to some of the disability insurance benefits she sought under Title II of the Social Security Act, the Commissioner filed a Motion for Voluntary Remand pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g). Chamberlain does not object to the Commissioner's Motion for Remand, but submits that the Court should assign the matter to another Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") and requests that this Court issue an order directing that ALJ, on remand, to call expert witnesses to testify regarding Chamberlain's impairments. For the following reasons, we agree with Judge Melinson's recommendations and conclude that the Commissioner's Motion for Remand is GRANTED and ORDER that this matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further action consistent with this opinion.
I. BACKGROUND
On March 6, 1998, Chamberlain filed a claim for Social Security disability insurance benefits, alleging that she suffers from contact dermatitis and a mood disorder since October 20, 1996 and, therefore, is disabled within the purview of the Social Security Act. Although Chamberlain alleged she was disabled since October 20, 1996, Judge Garrety, after an administrative hearing held on June 22, 1999, concluded that Chamberlain was only entitled to benefits under the Social Security Act as of December 10, 1998 and entered a partially favorable verdict accordingly. On September 16, 2002, the Commissioner filed a Voluntary Motion for Remand, claiming that the tape of the administrative hearing before Judge Garrety was inaudible and impossible to transcribe. Although Chamberlain did not contest the Motion for Remand, she argued that Judge Garrety exhibited bias against her by "misconstru[ing], distort[ing] and disregard[ing]" allegedly credible testimony and requested that the case be remanded to another ALJ who, in turn, should be ordered to call expert witnesses to testify about Chamberlain's alleged impairments. This Court referred the matter to Judge Melinson on October 2, 2002. After reviewing the Commissioner's Motion, Judge Melinson recommended that remand should be granted and suggested we reject Chamberlain's additional requests.
III. DISCUSSION
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), we review only those portions of Judge Melinson's Report to which Chamberlain has objected.Greco v. Barnhart, Civ. A. No. 01-4721, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17330, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 30, 2002); Palmer v. Apfel, 995 F. Supp. 549, 552 (E.D. Pa. 1998). Although neither party contests Judge Melinson's recommendation to remand the matter pursuant to sentence six of Section 405(g) of the Social Security Act, we expressly concur with his recommendation and grant the Commissioner's Motion under sentence six. Sentence six of Section 405(g) provides:
A district court may remand a social security claim on grounds set forth in either sentence four or sentence six of Section 405(g) of the Social Security Act. In relevant part, sentence four provides:
The court shall have power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the [Commissioner], with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing.42 U.S.C. § 405 (g).
Since the Commissioner was unable to transcribe the recording of the administrative hearing and consequently, as both parties agree, no record is available for this Court to review, remand on grounds set forth in sentence four is not feasible.
The court may, on motion of the [Commissioner] made for good cause shown before he files his answer, remand the case to the [Commissioner] for further action by the [Commissioner], and it may at any time order additional evidence to be taken before the [Commissioner], but only upon a showing that there is new evidence which is material and that there is good cause for the failure to incorporate such evidence into the record in a prior proceeding; and the [Commissioner] shall, after the case is remanded, and after hearing such additional evidence if so ordered, modify or affirm his findings of fact or his decision, or both, and shall file with the court any such additional and modified findings of fact and decision, and a transcript of the additional record and testimony upon which his action in modifying or affirming was based.42 U.S.C. § 405 (g). In the absence of an administrative transcript, we agree with Magistrate Judge Melinson and conclude that the inability of the Commissioner to transcribe the administrative hearing due to an inaudible recording constitutes "good cause" pursuant to sentence six and justifies remand.
We grant the Commissioner's Motion for Remand, but conclude that Chamberlain's Objections must be overruled. Claiming Judge Garrety improperly disregarded, misconstrued and distorted substantial testimonial evidence, Chamberlain requests that this Court transfer the matter to another ALJ instead of allowing Judge Garrety to hear the case on remand. The law is clear: "Due process demands impartiality on the part of those who function in judicial or quasi-judicial capacities."United Retail Wholesale Employers Teamsters Union Local No. 115 Pension Plan v. McDonnell, Inc., 787 F.2d 128, 137 (3d Cir. 1986) (citations omitted). While Chamberlain is certainly entitled to a hearing before an impartial judge, without a record of the administrative hearing in this matter to review, we cannot conclude that Chamberlain demonstrates a "conflict of interest or some other specific reason for disqualification." Therefore, she fails to defeat the presumption of impartiality Judge Garrety maintains and this matter shall not be reassigned to another ALJ. Schweiker v. McClure, 456 U.S. 188, 195 (1982); In re Seidman, 37 F.3d 911, 925 (3d Cir. 1994).
Additionally, Chamberlain requests that we order the ALJ to elicit the testimony of medical experts at the next administrative hearing. Again, since a record of the administrative hearing is not before us, we must refrain from ruling on issues of substantive law and, consequently, will not direct the ALJ to obtain expert testimony at this time. Moreover, we reject the suggestion, presented by Chamberlain, to "recreate" the administrative record by ordering the Commissioner to present this Court with documentary evidence presented before Judge Garrety and any notes taken during the hearing. In light of the inability to transcribe the tape of the administrative hearing and the absence of a record, we GRANT the Commissioner's Motion to Remand and DENY Chamberlain's requests as set forth above.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 10th day of December 2002, in consideration of Chief Magistrate Judge James R. Melinson's Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 9), the Objections of the Plaintiff, Donna Chamberlain ("Chamberlain") (Doc. No. 10), and the response of the Defendant, the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("Commissioner") (Doc. No. 11), thereto, it is ORDERED that:
1. The Report and Recommendation issued by Chief Magistrate Judge James R. Melinson is APPROVED and ADOPTED as supplemented by the foregoing memorandum.
2. Chamberlain's Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation are OVERRULED.
3. The Commissioner's Motion for Remand is GRANTED.
4. This matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g).
BY THE COURT.