Lynch v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
Filing
29
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 20 Motion to Remand, filed by Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, 25 Report and Recommendations, The Commissioners decision that the plaintiff is not disabled prior to August 9, 2005 is reversed pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and is remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings as stated herein and in the Magistrate Judges Report. The Clerk shall docket the Commissioners motion as granted in part.. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 3/12/09. (bbro, )
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
D a rle n e Lynch,
) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) Michael J. Astrue, ) C o m m is s io n e r of Social Security, ) ) D e f e n d a n t. ) ______________________________________ )
C /A No. 3:08-547-JFA-JRM
ORDER
T h is is an action brought by the plaintiff, Darlene Lynch, pursuant to sections 405(g) a n d 1383(c)(3) of the Social Security Act, as amended, to obtain judicial review of the final d e c is i o n of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("Commissioner") d e n yin g her claims for Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB") and Supplemental Security In c o m e ("SSI"). The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action 1 has prepared a Report and R e c o m m e n d a tio n wherein she suggests that the Commissioner's motion for entry of ju d g m e n t with order of remand be granted in part. The parties were advised of their right to file objections to the Report and R e c o m m e n d a tio n . Neither party filed objections to the Report, thus, it appears the matter is rip e for review by this court.
The Magistrate Judge's review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 7 3 .0 2 . The M a g is tr a te Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive w e i g h t , and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 ( 1 9 7 6 ) . The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific o b j e c t i o n is made and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate J u d g e , or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
1
1
T h e plaintiff protectively filed her application for DIB benefits on September 18, 2002 a n d SSI benefits on April 1, 2004. She alleges disability commencing on September 4, 2002. T h e Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") issued his decision awarding plaintiff benefits b e g in n in g on August 9, 2005. This decision was based on the ALJ's finding that the plaintiff m e t the criteria of § 12.04 A and B of the listing of impairments as of that date. However, the ALJ denied plaintiff's claims for benefits for the time period of S e p te m b e r 4, 2002 (the date plaintiff alleges she became disabled) up to August 9, 2005 (the d a te the ALJ set benefits to commence). The ALJ found that plaintiff was not disabled d u rin g this period because under the medical-vocational guidelines, plaintiff remains able to p e rf o rm work found in the national economy. T h e plaintiff has responded in partial opposition to the Commissioner's motion for e n try of judgment. The plaintiff agrees that the court should enter judgment with remand, b u t that the scope of proceedings on remand should not include a redetermination of issues a lre a d y decided in plaintiff's favor. In other words, the plaintiff seeks the have the scope of re v ie w upon remand limited to the period of September 4, 2002 until August 9, 2005. In her Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends affirming the Commissioner's d e c is io n that the plaintiff is disabled beginning August 9, 2005. The Magistrate further s u g g e sts that upon remand, the Appeals Council should be directed to remand the case to an A L J to hold a de novo hearing and issue new decision regarding plaintiff's eligibility for b e n e fits . The ALJ should obtain evidence from a vocational expert ("VE") to clarify the e f f e c t of plaintiff's nonexertional limitations on the occupational base and the hypothetical q u e stio n s to the VE should include all mental restrictions established by the record. 2
A f te r a careful review of the record and the Magistrate Judge's Report, the court finds th e Report provides an accurate summary of the facts in the instant case and that the c o n c lu s io n s are proper. The Magistrate Judge's findings are hereby specifically incorporated h e re in by reference. Accordingly, the Commissioner's decision that plaintiff is disabled beginning August 9 , 2005 is affirmed. The Commissioner's decision that the plaintiff is not disabled prior to A u g u s t 9, 2005 is reversed pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and is remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings as stated herein and in the Magistrate Judge's R e p o rt. The Clerk shall docket the Commissioner's motion as granted in part. IT IS SO ORDERED.
March 12, 2009 C o lu m b ia , South Carolina
J o s e p h F. Anderson, Jr. U n ite d States District Judge
3
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
