Stoltz v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, No. 5:2011cv02666 - Document 22 (N.D. Ohio 2012)
Court Description: Memorandum of Opinion and Order For the reasons stated in the Order, the Court hereby ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety, VACATES the Commissioner's decision denying benefits to Plaintiff Richard Stoltz, and REMANDS the case to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings consistent with the R&R. Related document 20 . Signed by Judge Dan Aaron Polster on 11/21/2012. (K,K)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Stoltz v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration Doc. 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION RICHARD STOLTZ, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMIN., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 1:11 CV 2666 JUDGE DAN AARON POLSTER MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER On November 9, 2012, Magistrate Judge Kenneth S. McHargh issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) finding that the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff Richard Stoltz’s application for Child’s Insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 402, and Supplemental Security Income benefits under Title XVI of the Social Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1381 et seq. was not supported by substantial evidence. (Doc #: 20.) The Magistrate Judge recommends that the decision of the Commission be vacated and remanded to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings consistent with the R&R. (Id.) On November 20, 2012, the Commissioner filed a response to the R&R stating that it will not be objecting to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. (Doc #: 21.) Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety, VACATES the Commissioner’s decision denying benefits to Plaintiff Richard Stoltz, and REMANDS the case to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings consistent with the R&R. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Dan A. Polster November 21, 2012 Dan Aaron Polster United States District Judge Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
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.
