UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)

JEROME D. AMOS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 17-cv-1707 (KBJ)

)

ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner )

of Social Security, )

)

Defendant. )

)

MEMORANDUM OPINION ADOPTING

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Jerome Amos applied to the Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant Andrew Saul (“Commissioner” or “Defendant”), for disability insurance 

benefits in 2013, claiming that he was disabled due to post-traumatic stress disorder 

(“PTSD”), migraine headaches, bilateral hearing loss, sleep apnea, and upper and lower 

back pain. (See Admin. R., ECF No. 4-3, at 2.) 1 In May of 2016, an Administrative 

Law Judge (“ALJ”) held a hearing on Amos’s application (see Admin. R., ECF No. 4-2, 

at 41), and determined that Amos was not disabled under the Social Security Act (see

id. at 35). Amos requested review by the Appeals Council (see Admin. R., ECF No. 4-

4, at 73–74), and the Appeals Council denied his request, making the ALJ’s decision the

agency’s final decision (see Admin. R., ECF No. 4-2, at 2). Amos filed the instant 

lawsuit on August 22, 2017, requesting that this Court reverse the ALJ’s denial decision

 1 Page-number citations to the documents that the parties have filed refer to the page numbers that the 

Court’s electronic filing system automatically assigns.
2

and award Amos disability insurance benefits, or, in the alternative, remand the case to 

the Commissioner for a new administrative hearing. (See Compl., ECF No. 1, at 2.)

On August 25, 2017, this Court referred this matter to a magistrate judge for full 

case management. (See Min. Order of Aug. 25, 2017.) On July 13, 2018, Amos filed a 

motion asking the Court either to reverse the Commissioner’s decision or to remand this 

matter back to the agency for a new hearing, arguing that the ALJ’s decision is not 

supported by substantial evidence and that the decision is erroneous as a matter of law. 

(See Pl.’s Mem. in Support of Pl.’s Mot. for J. of Reversal, ECF No. 7-1, at 1.) 

Subsequently, on August 27, 2018, Defendant filed a motion for judgment of affirmance 

of the ALJ’s decision, arguing that “the ALJ applied the correct law and relied on 

substantial evidence to find that Plaintiff did not meet the [Social Security] Act’s 

definition of disability when the record shows that Plaintiff traveled extensively and 

maintained independence.” (Def.’s Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for J. of Affirmance & in 

Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for J. of Reversal, ECF No. 8, at 4.) 

Before this Court at present is the Report and Recommendation that the assigned 

Magistrate Judge, G. Michael Harvey, has filed regarding Amos’s motion for reversal 

and Defendant’s motion for affirmance. (See R. & R., ECF No. 14.) 2 The Report and 

Recommendation reflects Magistrate Judge Harvey’s opinion that Amos’s motion for 

reversal should be granted; Defendant’s motion for affirmance should be denied; and 

the case should be remanded to the Commissioner for additional proceedings. (See id. 

at 24.) Specifically, Magistrate Judge Harvey finds that the ALJ’s findings regarding 

Amos’s residual functional capacity were not supported by substantial evidence, 

 2 The Report and Recommendation, which is 25 pages long, is attached hereto as Appendix A.
3

because the ALJ failed to address the Department of Veterans Affairs’ Rating Decision 

(“VA Rating Decision”) when assessing Amos’s physical and mental ability to perform 

work. (See id. at 15.) Magistrate Judge Harvey further finds that the VA Rating 

Decision constitutes material evidence regarding Plaintiff’s PTSD (see id.), and that 

Social Security Ruling 06-03p required the ALJ to afford the VA Rating Decision some 

weight (see id. at 16; see also id. & n.6 (explaining that Social Security Ruling 06-03p 

governs Amos’s claim, because it was filed before March 27, 2017)). Finally, 

Magistrate Judge Harvey determines that there is no merit to Amos’s contentions that 

the ALJ either improperly assessed his migraine headaches or failed to consider 

properly Amos’s wife’s testimony. (See id. at 15.) 

In addition to articulating these conclusions, Magistrate Judge Harvey’s Report 

and Recommendation also advises the parties that either party may file written 

objections to the Report and Recommendation, which must include the portions of the 

findings and recommendations to which each objection is made and the basis for each 

such objection. (See id. at 24.) The Report and Recommendation further advises the 

parties that failure to file timely objections may result in waiver of further review of the 

matters addressed in the Report and Recommendation. (See id. at 24–25.) Under this 

Court’s local rules, any party who objects to a Report and Recommendation must file a 

written objection with the Clerk of the Court within 14 days of the party’s receipt of the 

Report and Recommendation. See LCvR 72.3(b). The due date for objections has 

passed, and neither party has filed objections. 

This Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Harvey’s report and agrees with its 

careful and thorough analysis and conclusions. Therefore, the Court will ADOPT the 
4

Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Reversal will be GRANTED; Defendant’s Motion for Affirmance will be DENIED; 

and this matter will be REMANDED to the Commissioner for rehearing. 

A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

DATE: July 31, 2019 Ketanji Brown Jackson

KETANJI BROWN JACKSON

United States District Judge