Opinion
Case No. 00-CV-10238-BC
February 6, 2003
The plaintiff, who is presently twenty-nine years old, applied for benefits under Title II and Title XVI of the Social Security Act. She filed the present action on June 28, 2000 seeking review of the Commissioner's decision denying her claim for a period of disability, disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Charles E. Binder pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(b)(3). Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment seeking a remand to the Commissioner, and the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment requesting the decision of Commissioner be affirmed.
Magistrate Judge Binder filed a Report and Recommendation on March 16, 2001, recommending that plaintiff's motion be granted, the defendant's motion be denied, the findings of the Commissioner reversed, and the case remanded for an award of benefits. The defendant filed timely objections to the Report and Recommendation, to which the plaintiff responded, and this matter is now before the Court. The Court has reviewed the file, the Report and Recommendation and the objections filed thereto, and has made a de novo review of the administrative record in light of the objections filed. The defendant asserts in his objections, as he did in his brief in support of the motion for summary judgment, that the findings of the Administrative Law Judge were supported by substantial evidence in the record and that the decision of the Commissioner should be affirmed. Specifically, the defendant asserts that there is evidence in the record which is inconsistent with the plaintiff's subjective complaints of intractable pain and that the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that the plaintiff could return to her former employment is sound. The defendant also argues that the case should not have been remanded for an award of benefits, but, at most, for further proceedings.
The plaintiff has an eighth grade education and worked as a retail clerk for approximately three and one-half years, and one month for a cleaning service. She testified that her jobs involved standing at all times and some lifting. The plaintiff alleged that she became unable to work on April 7, 1998 and filed her claims the following September. After the claims were denied initially and upon reconsideration, the matter was reviewed by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Larry M. Miller who conducted a hearing on November 30, 1999. ALJ Miller's decision denying benefits was filed on January 12, 2000.
The ALJ utilized the five-step sequential analysis prescribed by the Secretary in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520, 416.920, finding that the plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since April 7, 1998, the plaintiff's conditions were "severe" within the meaning of the applicable statutes and regulations, and that no impairment or combination of impairments met or equaled any of the listings in the regulations. When ALJ concluded his Step-Four analysis, he found that the plaintiff possessed the residual functional capacity to perform a full range of medium exertion work, which included the work she had formerly performed. Consequently, the ALJ did not reach Step-Five of the analysis and concluded that the plaintiff was not disabled.
The Magistrate Judge found that this conclusion was not supported by substantial evidence in the whole record, inasmuch as the plaintiff was not capable of performing medium exertional work as defined by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(c) and Social Security Ruling (SSR) 83-10.
The record establishes that the plaintiff suffers from an abnormal curvature of the spine, known as scoliosis, that was severe enough to require the placement of a rod and fusion of several vertebrae. She also suffered from an abdominal mass, a tumor, which was surgically removed in 1991. However, there was a recurrence, and it is undisputed in the record that the plaintiff has been diagnosed with another benign tumor, known as a ganglioneuroma which is interfering with the function of the plaintiff's right kidney and ureter. These conditions are known as nephrotic syndrome and hydronephrosis. Her physicians have opined that the conditions are inoperable because the tumor encircles the inferior vena cava, the aorta and both renal vascular pedicles. Furthermore, neither radiation nor chemotherapy was considered to be a treatment option because of the risk of damage to the kidney.
Symptoms of these conditions include nausea and weakness, accompanied by fever and chills. The plaintiff reported bouts of emesis and stomach pain three to four times a day.
After reviewing the evidence in the record, the Magistrate Judge found that the ALJ's conclusion that the plaintiff could return to her former work, or that she could even perform any degree of light duty work, was simply not supported by the record.
Since, as the Magistrate Judge observed, the "consistent evidence" from the plaintiff's treating physicians established her inability to undertake work, there were no unresolved questions concerning the plaintiff's disability.
The Court believes that the Magistrate Judge's review of the record was correct, and that he properly applied the governing law. The Court, therefore, will overrule the defendant's objections and adopt the Recommendation and Report of the Magistrate Judge.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED.
It is further ORDERED that the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment [dkt #13] is GRANTED.
It is further ORDERED that the defendant's motion for summary judgment [dkt #18] is DENIED.
It is further ORDERED that the findings of the Commissioner are REVERSED, and the matter is remanded to the Social Security Commission for an award of benefits.