Holman v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Jovanna A. Holman sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying her application for Supplemental Security Income benefits on the ground that she was not disabled. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker, who issued a Report and Recommendation.

Holman moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the case should be sent back for further proceedings because the administrative law judge did not adequately explain why he gave little weight to a report from a treating nurse practitioner, rejected Holman’s testimony about her impairments, and failed to consider the side effects of her medications. The Commissioner opposed the motion and argued that the nurse practitioner was not a physician whose opinion was entitled to controlling weight, that the opinion was evaluated appropriately in light of conflicting medical evidence, and that the determination that Holman could perform a range of work with certain non-exertional limitations was supported by substantial evidence.

Report and Recommendation and Review

Judge Parker recommended granting Holman’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and denying the Commissioner’s cross-motion. She concluded that, although the nurse practitioner was not an acceptable medical source whose opinion was entitled to controlling weight under the applicable regulations, the administrative law judge still had to explain why little weight was given to the opinion in light of the lengthy treatment relationship. Judge Parker found that the administrative law judge failed to address the nurse practitioner’s uncontradicted finding that Holman’s impairments would cause her to miss work more than three times a month.

Judge Parker also found that the administrative law judge did not address medical evidence concerning the regularity and severity of Holman’s panic attacks. She concluded that further proceedings could allow the administrative law judge to explain the reasoning and obtain additional medical evidence about whether Holman could travel to work and maintain regular attendance. Judge Parker further found that the administrative law judge rejected Holman’s testimony about panic attacks and medication side effects using boilerplate language rather than the required specific rationale.

The parties did not file objections to the Report and Recommendation despite being warned that failing to object would waive further judicial review. The court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error rather than conducting a fresh review of the disputed issues.

Ruling

Judge Paul G. Gardephe found no clear error and adopted Judge Parker’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The court granted Holman’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings, and directed that the case be remanded to the Commissioner of Social Security for further proceedings. The court’s stated reasons for the remand were the administrative law judge’s inadequate explanations concerning the nurse practitioner’s opinion, the evidence about Holman’s panic attacks, Holman’s testimony, and her medication side effects.