Woods v. Barnhart

Full title: KAREN WOODS, Plaintiff, v. JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of the Social…

Court: United States District Court, W.D. Texas

Date published: Dec 2, 2003

No. SA-02-CA-744-RF (W.D. Tex. Dec. 2, 2003)

Opinion

No. SA-02-CA-744-RF

December 2, 2003

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

W. ROYAL FURGESON, District Judge

BEFORE THE COURT is the Memorandum and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, filed September 15, 2003. The Magistrate Judge recommended to reverse the Social Security Commissioner's decision. Neither party objected to this recommendation. After due consideration, the Court is of the opinion that the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law and should therefore be ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY.

I. Legal Standard

The Court reviews de novo a Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation if a party files specific objections within ten days of service.¹ If there are no 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.² In the instant case, neither party has objected to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation.

1 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

2 See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989).

II. Discussion

Plaintiff Karen Woods originally filed her application for disability benefits on April 7, 1999, alleging that she had been disabled since January 1, 1989 due to depression, epilepsy and back pain. The Social Security Administration denied her application both initially and upon reconsideration. On March 7, 2002, following an administrative hearing, the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") determined that Plaintiff was not disabled. The Appeals Council subsequently denied Plaintiffs request for review, resulting in the adoption of the ALJ's judgment as the final decision of Defendant. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and 1383(c)(3), Plaintiff initiated this action challenging the determination of Defendant.

Reviewing the record, the Magistrate Judge found no merit in Plaintiffs assertion that the ALJ misstated the evidence. Instead, the Magistrate Judge found that because the record contained support for the ALJ's determination, the ALJ's determination was a finding based on conflicting evidence, not a misstatement of uncontraverted facts. The Magistrate Judge also found that substantial evidence supports the ALJ's determination that Plaintiff's physical impairments have little impact on her employability. The Magistrate Judge thus found that Plaintiffs mental impairment is the primary basis for her disability claim.

The Magistrate Judge, however, found several problems with the ALJ's rejection of the opinion of the Plaintiffs treating physician, Dr. Surya, that Plaintiffs mental illness renders her incapable of functioning in a work setting. First, the Magistrate Judge determined that the ALJ's failure to discuss Plaintiffs bipolar disorder, as diagnosed by Dr. Surya, was erroneous.

Second, the Magistrate Judge found that the ALJ failed to justify his conclusion that Dr. Surya's reports do not support the limitations Dr. Surya imposed on Plaintiff. The Magistrate Judge found that the ALJ did not conduct the proper analysis under Newton v. Apfel,³ for rejecting or giving little weight to a treating physician's opinion. The Magistrate Judge also found the ALJ, upon determining that Dr. Surya's records are inconclusive or otherwise inadequate to receive controlling weight, erred in not utilizing a medical expert and/or requesting clarification from Dr. Surya to explain the significance of his determinations concerning Plaintiffs functional limitations.⁴

3 209 F.3d 448 (5th Cir. 2000).

4 See Id.

Third, the Magistrate Judge found that while it is permissible for the ALJ to discount Dr. Surya's opinion because the opinion was rendered as part of an application for benefits, the ALJ still needed to provide some explanation for rejecting Dr. Surya's medical opinion entirely, as it was the only evidence of Plaintiff's mental impairments from August 2000 to December 2001. Finally, the Magistrate Judge found that Dr. Surya's reports were consistent with the record; that the ALJ's conclusion that Plaintiffs restriction is mild is not supported by the evidence, and that substantial evidence does not support the Commissioner's decision denying Plaintiffs application for supplemental security income benefits.

Because the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendation are neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law, the Court therefore ORDERS that the Memorandum and Recommendation be ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY. It is further ORDERED that the Commissioner's decision be REVERSED and that this matter be REMANDED to the Commissioner for an award of benefits consistent with the Magistrate's Recommendation.⁵

5 According to 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g), a district court may affirm, reverse, or modify the decision of the Commissioner with or without remanding for rehearing. In the instant case, the Magistrate Judge recommended to reverse the Commissioner without remand for rehearing. Neither party objected to this recommendation and this Court finds that the recommendation was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

FINAL JUDGMENT

On this day, the Court entered an Order adopting the report of the United States Magistrate Judge recommending to reverse the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denying disability benefits. The Court now enters its Final Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge be ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY.

It is further ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration be REVERSED and that this matter be REMANDED to the commissioner for an award of benefits as of August 14, 2000.