Allen v. Astrue, No. 4:2009cv01281 - Document 26 (E.D. Mo. 2010)
Court Description: OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 24 , 13 , 19 , 23 ORDERED that the decision of the Commission is reversed and remanded for further clarification and explanation of Plaintiff's IQ scores and intellectual functioning level from October 19, 2005 through March 10, 2009. A separate judgment in accordance with this Opinion, Memorandum and Order is entered this same date. cc: Bureau of Hearings Signed by Honorable Henry E. Autrey on 7/7/10. (CEL)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Allen v. Astrue Doc. 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION CHAD ALLEN, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security Defendant, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 4:09CV1281 HEA OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation, of Magistrate Judge Thomas C. Mummert, III, 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 Dockets.Justia.com benefits before a subsequent claim and award rendered by Defendant finding Plaintiff disabled as of March 11, 2009. The Court agrees with Plaintiff that before Plaintiff s current eligibility could be terminated, Defendant must follow the 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 October 19, 2005 through March 10, 2009, and in accordance with Judge Mummert 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 for further clarification and explanation of Plaintiff s IQ scores and intellectual functioning level from October 19, 2005 through March 10, 2009. A separate judgment in accordance with this Opinion, Memorandum and Order is entered this same date. Dated this 7th 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.
