Smith v. Astrue, No. 4:2009cv01196 - Document 21 (E.D. Mo. 2010)
Court Description: OPINION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the decision of the Commission is reversed and remanded to the ALJ in order for the ALJ to properly credit Plaintiffs valid IQ scores and determine if Plaintiffs mental impairments meet or equal Listing 12.05(C). If the ALJ determines that Plaintiffs impairments do not meet or equal Listing 12.05(C), the ALJ should proceed with the sequential analysis and properly determine Plaintiffs residual functional capacity. A separate judgment in accordance with this Opinion, Memorandum and Order is entered this same date. Signed by Honorable Henry E. Autrey on 7/21/10. (CLA)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Smith v. Astrue Doc. 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION JARMAN M. SMITH, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security Defendant, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 4:09CV1196 HEA OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation, of Magistrate Judge Lewis M. Blanton, that the decision of the Commissioner be reversed and remanded. Plaintiff has filed written objections to the Report and Recommendation. When a party objects to the magistrate judge s report and recommendation, the Court must conduct a de novo review of the portions of the report, findings, or recommendations to which the party objected. See United States v. Lothridge, 324 F.3d 599, 600 (8th Cir.2003) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court will therefore conduct such a de novo review. Plaintiff has no objection to a reversal and remand pursuant to the Report and Recommendation, but only for the limited purpose of Plaintiff s eligibility for benefits before a subsequent claim and award rendered by Defendant finding Plaintiff disabled as of February 7, 2008. The Court agrees with Plaintiff that before Plaintiff s current eligibility could be terminated, Defendant must follow the Dockets.Justia.com due process requirements of 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.994 and 416.995. Therefore, the scope of the remand shall be limited to consideration of Plaintiff s eligibility before the date covered by the subsequent award, i.e., for the period from September 3, 2003 through February 6, 2008, and in accordance with Judge Blanton s findings and conclusions as stated in the Report and Recommendation. The Court also adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the decision of the Commission is reversed and remanded to the ALJ in order for the ALJ to properly credit Plaintiff s valid IQ scores and determine if Plaintiff s mental impairments meet or equal Listing 12.05(C). If the ALJ determines that Plaintiff s impairments do not meet or equal Listing 12.05(C), the ALJ should proceed with the sequential analysis and properly determine Plaintiff s residual functional capacity. A separate judgment in accordance with this Opinion, Memorandum and Order is entered this same date. Dated this 21st day of July, 2010. _______________________________ HENRY EDWARD AUTREY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -2-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
