Mitchell v. Social Security Administration, No. 2:2019cv01445 - Document 26 (E.D. La. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Commissioner's Objections to the 22 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS are OVERRULED, and the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. The 18 MOTION for Summary Judgmen t filed by Lashonda Mitchell is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The 21 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by the Social Security Administration is DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN PART. The matter is hereby REMANDED for proceedings consistent with the Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Mary Ann Vial Lemmon on 4/15/2020. (CC: SSA)(sbs)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Mitchell v. Social Security Administration Doc. 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LASHONDA MITCHELL CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO: 19-1445 ANDREW SAUL, COMM'R OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION SECTION: "S" (1) ORDER AND REASONS Before the court are the Commissioner's Objections (Rec. Doc. 24) to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Rec. Doc. 22). IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Commissioner's Objections are OVERRULED. Plaintiff has appealed the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denying plaintiff disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits. The United States Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation on February 4, 2020, recommending that the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the plaintiff (Rec. Doc. 18) be granted in part and denied in part, and that the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the Commissioner (Rec. Doc. 21) be denied in part and granted in part. In partially granting the plaintiff's motion, the Magistrate Judge found that the ALJ had erred in discounting plaintiff's treating physician's opinion without sufficiently articulating that he had considered the requirements of 20 C.F.R. ยง 404.1527(c), when there was no other relevant medical opinion of a treating, examining, or even record reviewing psychiatrist in the record. She further found that the matter should be remanded to the ALJ for further proceedings. Dockets.Justia.com The Commissioner filed objections to the Report and Recommendation on April 2, 2020. The Commissioner contends that the ALJ did not fail to give the treating physician's opinion the weight due it, and further, that a section 404.1527(c) analysis was not required because the record includes reliable medical evidence from other treating or examining physicians. The undersigned has made an independent examination of the record in this case. It reflects that the ALJ gave "little weight to the opinions of Dr. Dunn"1 even though plaintiff's severe impairments include a mental impairment, specifically schizoaffective disorder-bipolar type, and Dr. Dunn was her treating psychiatrist. As for the reliable medical evidence from other examining physicians, the ALJ gave "great weight to the opinions of Dr. Hersh",2 who performed a consultative physical examination at the request of the state agency in March 2014, approximately three years prior to the plaintiff's assertion of the relevant psychiatric issues in 2017, which did not touch on any psychiatric issues. Considering these facts, the ALJ was required to consider the factors set forth in section 1404.1527(c), which the record reflects was not done, either implicitly or explicitly. See Newton v. Apfel, 209 F.3d 448, 453 (5th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, the undersigned hereby OVERRULES the Commissioner's objections to the Report and Recommendation, and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. The Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the plaintiff (Rec. Doc. 18) be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; and the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by 1 Rec. Doc. 14-2, p. 21 (SSA Decision, p. 11). 2 Id. 2 the Commissioner (Rec. Doc. 21) is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. The matter is hereby REMANDED for proceedings consistent with the Report and Recommendation. 15th day of April, 2020. New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ ____________________________________ MARY ANN VIAL LEMMON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
