United States District Court, District of Columbia
JEROME D. AMOS, Plaintiff,
v.
ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION ADOPTING REPORT &
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
KETANJI BROWN JACKSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff
Jerome Amos applied to the Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant Andrew Saul (“Commissioner” or
“Defendant”), for disability insurance benefits
in 2013, claiming that he was disabled due to post-traumatic
stress disorder (“PTSD”), migraine headaches,
bilateral hearing loss, sleep apnea, and upper and lower back
pain. (See Admin. R., ECF No. 4-3, at
2.)[1]
In May of 2016, an Administrative Law Judge
(“ALJ”) held a hearing on Amos's application
(see Admin. R., ECF No. 4-2, at 41), and determined
that Amos was not disabled under the Social Security Act
(see Id. at 35). Amos requested review by the
Appeals Council (see Admin. R., ECF No. 4-4, at
73-74), and the Appeals Council denied his request, making
the ALJ's decision the agency's final decision
(see Admin. R., ECF No. 4-2, at 2). Amos filed the
instant lawsuit on August 22, 2017, requesting that this
Court reverse the ALJ's denial decision and award Amos
disability insurance benefits, or, in the alternative, remand
the case to the Commissioner for a new administrative
hearing. (See Compl., ECF No. 1, at 2.)
On
August 25, 2017, this Court referred this matter to a
magistrate judge for full case management. (See Min.
Order of Aug. 25, 2017.) On July 13, 2018, Amos filed a
motion asking the Court either to reverse the
Commissioner's decision or to remand this matter back to
the agency for a new hearing, arguing that the ALJ's
decision is not supported by substantial evidence and that
the decision is erroneous as a matter of law. (See
Pl.'s Mem. in Support of Pl.'s Mot. for J. of
Reversal, ECF No. 7-1, at 1.) Subsequently, on August 27,
2018, Defendant filed a motion for judgment of affirmance of
the ALJ's decision, arguing that “the ALJ applied
the correct law and relied on substantial evidence to find
that Plaintiff did not meet the [Social Security] Act's
definition of disability when the record shows that Plaintiff
traveled extensively and maintained independence.”
(Def.'s Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for J. of Affirmance &
in Opp'n to Pl.'s Mot. for J. of Reversal, ECF No. 8,
at 4.)
Before
this Court at present is the Report and Recommendation that
the assigned Magistrate Judge, G. Michael Harvey, has filed
regarding Amos's motion for reversal and Defendant's
motion for affirmance. (See R. & R., ECF No.
14.)[2]
The Report and Recommendation reflects Magistrate Judge
Harvey's opinion that Amos's motion for reversal
should be granted; Defendant's motion for affirmance
should be denied; and the case should be remanded to the
Commissioner for additional proceedings. (See Id. at
24.) Specifically, Magistrate Judge Harvey finds that the
ALJ's findings regarding Amos's residual functional
capacity were not supported by substantial evidence, because
the ALJ failed to address the Department of Veterans
Affairs' Rating Decision (“VA Rating
Decision”) when assessing Amos's physical and
mental ability to perform work. (See Id. at 15.)
Magistrate Judge Harvey further finds that the VA Rating
Decision constitutes material evidence regarding
Plaintiff's PTSD (see id.), and that Social
Security Ruling 06-03p required the ALJ to afford the VA
Rating Decision some weight (see Id. at 16; see
also Id. & n.6 (explaining that Social Security
Ruling 06-03p governs Amos's claim, because it was filed
before March 27, 2017)). Finally, Magistrate Judge Harvey
determines that there is no merit to Amos's contentions
that the ALJ either improperly assessed his migraine
headaches or failed to consider properly Amos's
wife's testimony. (See Id. at 15.)
In
addition to articulating these conclusions, Magistrate Judge
Harvey's Report and Recommendation also advises the
parties that either party may file written objections to the
Report and Recommendation, which must include the portions of
the findings and recommendations to which each objection is
made and the basis for each such objection. (See Id.
at 24.) The Report and Recommendation further advises the
parties that failure to file timely objections may result in
waiver of further review of the matters addressed in the
Report and Recommendation. (See Id. at 24-25.) Under
this Court's local rules, any party who objects to a
Report and Recommendation must file a written objection with
the Clerk of the Court within 14 days of the party's
receipt of the Report and Recommendation. See LCvR
72.3(b). The due date for objections has passed, and neither
party has filed objections.
This
Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Harvey's report and
agrees with its careful and thorough analysis and
conclusions. Therefore, the Court will ADOPT
the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Accordingly,
Plaintiff's Motion for Reversal will be
GRANTED; Defendant's Motion for
Affirmance will be DENIED; and this matter
will be REMANDED to the Commissioner for
rehearing.
A
separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
---------
Notes:
[1] Page-number citations to the documents
that the parties have filed refer to the page numbers that
the Court's electronic filing system automatically
assigns.
[2] The Report and Recommendation, which
is 25 pages long, is attached hereto as ...