United States District Court, E.D. Texas
ORDER OVERRULING COMMISSIONER'S OBJECTIONS AND
ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION.
MARCIA
A. CRONE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This
matter has been referred to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn,
United States Magistrate Judge, for consideration pursuant to
applicable laws and orders of this court. The magistrate
judge submitted a report recommending a remand of the
Commissioner's decision because the ALJ's finding
that Adams was not compliant with his medication and
treatment is not supported by substantial evidence. (Dkt.
23.) The Commissioner filed timely objections to the
magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. 24.)
The court, therefore, must conduct a de novo review
of the objections in relation to the pleadings and the
applicable law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).
I.
OBJECTIONS
The
Commissioner argues that the ALJ's failure to provide the
appropriate weight given to Adams' treating physician
evidence is not grounds for remand. While the Commissioner is
correct that there is no duty for an ALJ to discuss and weigh
all evidence, the ALJ's findings still must be
supported by substantial evidence. The magistrate
judge concluded that the medical record as a whole, including
extensive records from Adams' treating physicians, does
not constitute substantial evidence to support the ALJ's
finding that Adams had been noncompliant with his medical
treatment. In her objections, the Commissioner references
three instances to demonstrate a pattern of noncompliance.
The first, a hospital record in 2011 when the Plaintiff was
hospitalized and blood tests show that his seizure medication
was not within the required therapeutic range. The second, in
2013 when he was hospitalized for a seizure as a result of a
missed dose of his medication. Finally, a treating doctor
note from 2015 (outside the relevant time period) that states
Adams experienced no seizures after strict compliance with
medication.[1] She also mentions his marijuana use. The
Commissioner claims that these isolated instances establish
substantial evidence that supports the ALJ's finding that
Adams had been noncompliant with his medical treatment.
The
magistrate judge's report and recommendation summarizes
Adams' expansive medical record, and thoroughly explains
why the entirety of the evidence does not constitute
substantial evidence that Adams had been noncompliant with
his medical treatment. Substantial evidence is “more
than a mere scintilla and less than a preponderance.”
Garcia v. Berryhill, 880 F.3d 700, 704 (5th Cir.
2018). It requires evidence relevant and sufficient for a
reasonable mind to accept as adequate to support a
conclusion. See Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389,
390 (1971); Marcello v. Bowen, 803 F.2d 851, 853
(5th Cir.1986) (citing Jones v. Heckler, 702 F.2d
616, 620 (5th Cir. 1983). To determine whether substantial
evidence exists to support the ALJ's findings, the entire
record must be scrutinized carefully. Greenspan v.
Shalala, 38 F.3d 232, 236 (5th Cir.1994), cert.
denied 514 U.S. 1120 (1995); Ransom v. Heckler,
715 F.2d 989, 992 (5th Cir.1983). In isolation, the incidents
cited by the Commissioner might suggest discrete episodes of
noncompliance. However, when viewing the medical evidence as
a whole, medical records after 2010 document Adams' firm
dedication to medical treatment in an attempt to alleviate
his symptoms. An ALJ must consider all the record evidence
and cannot pick and choose only the evidence that supports
his position. Loza v. Apfel, 219 F.3d 378, 393 (5th
Cir. 2000). Accordingly, the court finds that the ALJ's
decision is not supported by substantial evidence and shall
be remanded for further administrative proceedings consistent
with the magistrate judge's report and recommendation.
II.
ORDER
The
court considered the report and recommendation filed on
February 16, 2018 (Dkt. No. 23), the Plaintiffs Objections
(Dkt. No. 24), the medical record, pleadings, and all
available evidence. The magistrate judge recommends remanding
the Commissioner's decision to deny benefits. After
careful consideration, the court OVERRULES
the Commissioner's objections to the magistrate
judge's report, ADOPTS the magistrate
judge's recommendation, and REMANDS the
Commissioner's denial of benefits.
---------
Notes:
[1] The August 3, 2015 medical record from
Adams' treating neurologist, Dr. Punay, does not state
that Adams experienced “no seizures” after
“strict compliance, ” as the Commissioner
represents. Rather, it states that “[h]is seizures have
been better controlled with his current medications, ”
that he did not experience seizures since his last visit, and
that he was advised to continue strict compliance with his
medication. (Dkt. 19, 34-35.) This same medical record
described Adams' seizure disorder as one that interferes
with activities of daily living, quality of life, and work.
(Dkt. 19, p. 34.) Furthermore, office notes from his December
1, 2015 visit with Dr. Punay (also outside the relevant time
period) indicate that Adams' “[o]verall condition
...