IRENE M. KEELEY, District Judge.
On October 17, 2017, the plaintiff, Daphnie Campbell ("Campbell"), filed a complaint against the defendant, the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") (Dkt. No. 1), seeking review of the Commissioner's final decision denying her applications for Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB") and Supplemental Security Income ("SSI"). After the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment, Magistrate Judge Michael J. Aloi issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), recommending that the Court deny Campbell's motion and grant the Commissioner's motion, finding that the Commissioner's decision denying Campbell's applications was supported by substantial evidence (Dkt. No. 25). For the reasons that follow, the Court
On April 2, 2018, Campbell filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the Commissioner's final decision denying her applications for DIB and SSI is not supported by substantial evidence (Dkt. Nos. 14, 15). Campbell contends that (1) the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") erroneously evaluated her subjective complaints, and (2) the decision was not sufficiently particularized to provide for meaningful review (Dkt. No. 15 at 4-6). Campbell also contends that the ALJ erroneously assessed her residual functional capacity ("RFC") by failing to consider the combined effect of her alleged impairments, and by erroneously exercising an expertise in neurology.
The Commissioner's motion for summary judgment contends that the ALJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence (Dkt. Nos. 23, 24). In support, the Commissioner submits that the ALJ properly evaluated Campbell's subjective complaints against the medical evidence of record (Dkt. No. 24), and appropriately assessed Campbell's RFC by considering the effects of her physical and mental impairments and by discounting Dr. Thompson's opinion.
In the R&R filed on January 7, 2019, Magistrate Judge Aloi concluded that the ALJ had properly weighed Campbell's subjective complaints against the medical evidence of record and appropriately accorded little weight to the statement of Dr. Thompson, Campbell's treating physician (Dkt. No. 25 at 29-39). He next concluded that it was harmless error for the ALJ to have exercised an expertise in neurology she did not possess.
When reviewing a magistrate judge's R&R, the Court must review
Summary judgment is approp riate only "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is nogenuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving partyis entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). When ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the Court reviews all the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.
The moving party bears the initial burden of informing the Court of the basis for the motion and of establishing the nonexistence of genuine issues of fact.
After reviewing the R&R for clear error, the Court concludes that, even though the ALJ properly evaluated Campbell's subjective complaints of pain and did not err in discounting the physician statement of Dr. Thompson, she failed to consider the combined effects of Campbell's physical impairments and improperly exercised an expertise in neurology she did not possess. Accordingly, the Commissioner's final decision denying Campbell's applications for DIB and SSI is not supported by substantial evidence.
Neither party objected to Magistrate Judge Aloi's conclusions that the ALJ properly evaluated Campbell's subjective complaints against the medical evidence of record and did not err in according little weight to Dr. Thompson's physician statement (Dkt. No. 25 at 29-39). Finding no clear error, the Court
"It is axiomatic that disability may result from a number of impairments which, taken separately, might not be disabling, but whose total effect, taken together, is to render claimant unable to engage in substantial gainful activity."
Here, the ALJ's analysis of Campbell's alleged impairments plainly falls short of her obligation to consider the combined effect of a claimant's impairments because she only considered the combined effect of Campbell's alleged mental impairments but failed to consider the combined effect of Campbell's alleged physical impairments (Dkt. No. 9-2 at 33-35). Because the ALJ fragmentized Campbell's alleged impairments and failed to consider the combined effect of her alleged physical impairments, substantial evidence does not support the Commissioner's final decision denying Campbell's applications for DIB and SSI.
Neither party objected to Magistrate Judge Aloi's conclusion that the ALJ committed harmless error when she improperly exercised an expertise in neurology she did not possess (Dkt. No. 25 at 29-39). Finding no clear error, the Court
Nevertheless, inasmuch as the ALJ is not a trained medical professional, on remand she should be careful not to interpret the results of Campbell's electroencephalograms.
For the reasons discussed, the Court
It is so
The Court