Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Schake v. Berryhill

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Eastern Division

March 19, 2018

TAMARA LYNN SCHAKE, Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

          ORDER

          LINDA R. READE JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION

         The matter before the court is Plaintiff Tamara Lynn Schake's Objections (docket no. 22) to United States Chief Magistrate Judge C.J. Williams's Report and Recommendation (docket no. 21), which recommends that the court affirm Defendant Commissioner of Social Security's (“Commissioner”) final decision to deny disability benefits to Schake.

         II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         On November 14, 2016, Schake filed a Complaint (docket no. 3), seeking judicial review of the Commissioner's final decision denying Schake's application for Title II disability insurance benefits and Title XVI Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”). On January 23, 2017, the Commissioner filed an Answer (docket no. 8). On May 12, 2017, Schake filed the Plaintiff's Brief (docket no. 15). On July 25, 2017, the Commissioner filed the Defendant's Brief (docket no. 18). On August 3, 2017, Schake filed a Reply (docket no. 19). On August 4, 2017, the matter was referred to Judge Williams for issuance of a report and recommendation. On September 7, 2017, Judge Williams issued the Report and Recommendation. On September 12, 2017, Schake filed the Objections.

         On September 27, 2017, the Commissioner filed a Response (docket no. 23) to the Objections. The matter is fully submitted and ready for decision.

         III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         A. Review of Final Decision

         When the Commissioner adopts an Administrative Law Judge's (“ALJ”) findings and conclusions as its final decision, the final decision is subject to judicial review. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The court “will affirm the Commissioner's decision if supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.” Anderson v. Astrue, 696 F.3d 790, 793 (8th Cir. 2012). “Substantial evidence is ‘less than a preponderance but enough that a reasonable mind would find it adequate to support the conclusion.'” Id. (alteration omitted) (quoting Jones v. Astrue, 619 F.3d 963, 968 (8th Cir. 2010)). In determining whether substantial evidence supports the Commissioner's decision, the court “consider[s] the evidence that supports the Commissioner's decision as well as the evidence that detracts from it.” Jones, 619 F.3d at 968 (quoting Kluesner v. Astrue, 607 F.3d 533, 536 (8th Cir. 2010)). A court “will not disturb the denial of benefits so long as the ALJ's decision falls within the available ‘zone of choice.'” Casey v. Astrue, 503 F.3d 687, 691 (8th Cir. 2007) (quoting Nicola v. Astrue, 480 F.3d 885, 886 (8th Cir. 2007)). “If, after reviewing the entire record, it is possible to draw two inconsistent positions, and the Commissioner has adopted one of those positions, ” the court must affirm the Commissioner's decision. Anderson, 696 F.3d at 793.

         When reviewing the Commissioner's decision, the court “must judge the propriety of such action solely by the grounds invoked by the agency” and may not affirm the decision based on a post hoc rationale that “it considers to be a more adequate or proper basis.” Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 196 (1947); see also, e.g., Hanson v. Colvin, 760 F.3d 759, 762 (7th Cir. 2014) (applying Chenery analysis in the context of social security benefits); Haga v. Astrue, 482 F.3d 1205, 1207-08 (10th Cir. 2007) (same); Strom v. Astrue, Civil No. 07-150, 2008 WL 583690, at *27 (D. Minn. Mar. 3, 2008) (same). In other words, “‘a reviewing court may not uphold an agency decision based on reasons not articulated by the agency, ' when ‘the agency has failed to make a necessary determination of fact or policy' upon which the court's alternative basis is premised.” Banks v. Massanari, 258 F.3d 820, 824 (8th Cir. 2001) (alterations omitted) (quoting HealthEast Bethesda Lutheran Hosp. & Rehab. Ctr. v. Shalala, 164 F.3d 415, 418 (8th Cir. 1998)).

         B. Review of Report and Recommendation

         The standard of review to be applied by the court to a report and recommendation of a magistrate judge is established by statute:

A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (providing that, when a party properly objects to a report and recommendation on a dispositive motion, a district court must review de novo the magistrate judge's recommendation). The Eighth Circuit has repeatedly held that it is reversible error for a district court to fail to conduct a de novo review of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation when such review is required. See, e.g., United States v. Lothridge, 324 F.3d 599, 600 (8th Cir. 2003); Hosna v. Groose, 80 F.3d 298, 306 (8th Cir. 1996); Hudson v. Gammon, 46 F.3d 785, 786 (8th Cir. 1995); Belk v. Purkett, 15 F.3d 803, 815 (8th Cir. 1994). The statute governing review provides only for de novo review of “those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The court reviews the unobjected-to portions of the proposed findings or recommendations for “plain error.” See United ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.