McLaughlin v. Berryhill, No. 2:2015cv12919 - Document 23 (S.D.W. Va. 2017)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting and incorporating the 22 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge; granting plaintiff's 17 request for a remand; denying defendant's 20 request to affirm the decision of the Co mmissioner; and reversing the decision of the Commissioner; this action is remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for further proceedings which shall include a discussion and evaluation of the conflicting opinion evidence b y the state agency psychological consultants and plaintiff's treating psychiatrist, as well as to provide analysis as to why plaintiff did not satisfy the criteria of Listing 12.02C, as more fully set forth in the magistrate judge's Proposed Findings and Recommendation. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 2/15/2017. (cc: counsel of record; United States Magistrate Judge) (taq)

Download PDF
McLaughlin v. Berryhill Doc. 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT CHARLESTON CONNIE SUE McLAUGHLIN Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 15-12919 NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The court having received the Proposed Findings and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley, entered on January 24, 2017; and the magistrate judge having recommended that the court reverse the final decision of the Commissioner, grant plaintiff’s motion in Support of Judgment on the Pleadings to the extent it requests remand; and the magistrate judge having further recommended that the court deny the Commissioner’s motion in Support of the Defendant’s Decision, reverse the final decision of the Commissioner, remand this case for further proceedings, and dismiss this matter from the court’s docket; and no objection having been filed to the Proposed Findings and Recommendation, it is ORDERED that: Dockets.Justia.com 1. The findings made in the Proposed Findings and Recommendation of the magistrate judge be, and they hereby are, adopted by the court and incorporated herein; 2. Plaintiff’s request for a remand be, and it hereby is, granted; 3. Defendant’s request to affirm the decision of the Commissioner be, and it hereby is, denied; 4. The decision of the Commissioner be, and it hereby is, reversed; 5. This action be, and it hereby is, remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for further proceedings which shall include a discussion and evaluation of the conflicting opinion evidence by the state agency psychological consultants and plaintiff’s treating psychiatrist, as well as to provide analysis as to why plaintiff did not satisfy the criteria of Listing 12.02C, as more fully set forth in the magistrate judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommendation. The Clerk is directed to forward copies of this written opinion and order to all counsel of record and the United States Magistrate Judge. DATED: February 15, 2016 DATED: January 5, 2017 John T. Copenhaver, Jr. United States District Judge

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.