Campbell v. Berryhill
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:19-cv-00181
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Campbell v. Saul, Judge Engelmayer adopted a recommendation, granted Campbell’s motion, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion, and remanded the benefits decision.
Rosemary Campbell and the Social Security Administration; the administrative law judge must reconsider the disability-benefits decision as directed by the remand.
What happened
In Campbell v. Saul, Rosemary Campbell asked the court to review the Social Security Commissioner’s decision denying her applications for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. A magistrate judge recommended granting Campbell’s motion and sending the matter back for further proceedings.
Neither side objected to that recommendation. The court therefore reviewed it for clear error and found none. The court also stated that the lack of objections waived appellate review.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer adopted the recommendation in full, granted Campbell’s motion, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion, and remanded the case under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The administrative law judge must further develop and evaluate the medical evidence, consider all of Campbell’s medically determinable impairments, and reassess her credibility.
The detailed version
- Campbell v. Berryhill · No. 1:19-cv-00181
- Paul Engelmayer
- Feb. 21, 2020
Background
Rosemary Campbell sued under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying her applications for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. The court had before it a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation issued January 30, 2020. That report recommended granting Campbell’s motion, denying the Commissioner’s cross-motion, and remanding the case for further proceedings.
Standard and Review
A court may set aside the Commissioner’s disability decision if the factual findings are not supported by substantial evidence or if the decision rests on legal error. “Substantial evidence” means relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
Neither Campbell nor the Commissioner objected to the Report and Recommendation. The district court therefore reviewed the report for clear error on the face of the record. The court found no such error and adopted the report in its entirety. The court also held that the failure to object waived appellate review, consistent with the warning in the report.
Ruling
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer granted Campbell’s motion and denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion. The court remanded the case under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and directed that the administrative law judge:
- Obtain further clarification from Dr. Megarr about the basis of his opinion, including whether treating notes were missing, and evaluate that opinion as a treating physician’s opinion;
- Further develop the evidence by seeking completed medical questionnaires or similar testimony from Dr. Tun, Dr. Cash, and Denis Tomlinson, or by obtaining a consultative examination concerning the severity and functional limitations of Campbell’s mental and manual-dexterity impairments;
- Consider all medically determinable impairments, whether severe or nonsevere, when determining Campbell’s residual functional capacity; and
- Reevaluate Campbell’s credibility in light of the relevant medical and other evidence.
The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motions at docket entries 16 and 19 and close the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.