Langston v. Colvin, CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-CV-1117

• Decision Date: 30 August 2016
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-CV-1117
• Parties: DENISE LANGSTON, Plaintiff v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania

DENISE LANGSTON, Plaintiff v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-CV-1117

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

August 30, 2016

(Chief Judge Conner)

ORDER

AND NOW, this 30th day of August, 2016, upon consideration of the report (Doc. 22) of Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn, recommending the court vacate the decision of the administrative law judge and remand the above-captioned matter for further proceedings with respect to the application for disability insurance benefits of plaintiff Denise Langston ("Langston"), wherein Judge Cohn concludes that the administrative law judge's decision is not "supported by substantial evidence," 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and finds specifically that the administrative law judge erred by (1) improperly rejecting the third party function report of Langston's sister, (2) failing to assign proper weight to the medical opinion of Langston's treating physician, and (3) failing to recontact Langston's treating physician before rejecting his opinion, (see Doc. 22), and wherein Judge Cohn recommends that the matter be remanded for full development of the record and a new administrative hearing, and the court noting that the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") filed objections (Doc. 23) to the report, and Langston filed a response (Doc. 24) in support of Judge Cohn's recommendation, and, following a de novo review of the contested portions of the report, see Behar v. Pa. Dep't of Transp., 791 F. Supp. 2d 383, 389 (M.D. Pa. 2011) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099, 1106 n.3 (3d Cir. 1989)), and applying a clear error standard of review to the uncontested portions, see Cruz v. Chater, 990 F. Supp. 375, 376-78 (M.D. Pa. 1999), the court finding Judge Cohn's legal analysis concerning the administrative law judge's rejection of Langston's treating source to be thorough, well-reasoned, and fully supported by the record, and finding the Commissioner's objection to the report's ultimate recommendation to be without merit,¹ it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The report (Doc. 22) of Magistrate Judge Cohn is ADOPTED to the extent set forth herein.

2. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in favor of Denise Langston and against the Commissioner as set forth in the following paragraph.

3. The Commissioner's decision denying the application for disability insurance benefits of Denise Langston is VACATED. This matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner with instructions to conduct a new administrative hearing, develop the record fully, and evaluate the evidence appropriately in accordance with this order and the report (Doc. 22) of Magistrate Judge Cohn, to the extent adopted herein.

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER

Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Middle District of Pennsylvania

1. The Commissioner lodges a threefold objection to the magistrate judge's legal conclusions, asserting that the magistrate judge erred: first, in suggesting that the administrative law judge improperly disregarded the third party lay opinion of Langston's sister without justification; second, in determining that the administrative law judge improperly rejected the medical opinion of Langston's treating physician in favor of a state agency psychological consultant's opinion; and third, by intimating that an administrative law judge has a mandatory duty in every instance to recontact a treating physician before rejecting his or her opinion as unsupported. (See Doc. 23 at 3-21). The court agrees with Judge Cohn's finding that, on this record, the administrative law judge improperly rejected the medical opinion of Langston's treating physician. (Doc. 22 at 17-23). This determination independently supports Judge Cohn's recommendation of vacatur of the administrative law judge's decision and remand for a new hearing.

The undersigned writes briefly to clarify certain observations in the magistrate judge's report challenged by the Commissioner's objections. First, to the extent the report suggests the administrative law judge improperly disregarded a third party lay opinion, or failed to articulate a legitimate basis for...