Duell v. Astrue, No. 8:2008cv00969 - Document 19 (N.D.N.Y 2010)
Court Description: DECISION & ORDER: accepting and adopting in whole the 17 Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bianchini; that the Commissioners decision denying disability benefits is REMANDED for further development of the evidence; and the matter is REMANDED for further proceedings in accordance with the recommendation and pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g). Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on 1/5/2010. (see)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------REBECCA DUELL, Plaintiff, vs 8:08-CV-969 MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. --------------------------------APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: MARK A. SCHNEIDER, ESQ. Attorney for Plaintiff 57 Court Street Plattsburgh, NY 12901 SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF REGIONAL GENERAL COUNSEL Region II 26 Federal Plaza - Room 3904 New York, NY 10278 SHEENA VS. WILLIAMS-BARR, ESQ. DAVID N. HURD United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Plaintiff filed this action in September 2008, seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ( Commissioner ) denying her application for disability insurance benefits ( DIB ) and Supplemental Security Income ( SSI ). By ReportRecommendation dated November 12, 2009, the Honorable Victor E. Bianchini, United States Magistrate Judge, recommended that the Commissioner s decision denying disability benefits be remanded for further proceedings in accordance with the report-recommendation and pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. Section 405(g). No objections have been filed, however the plaintiff s attorney has filed a letter requesting that a Final Order be filed. Based upon a careful review of the entire file and the recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bianchini, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in whole. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that 1. The Commissioner s decision denying disability benefits is REMANDED for further development of the evidence; and 2. The matter is REMANDED for further proceedings in accordance with the recommendation and pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. Section 405(g). IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 5, 2010 Utica, New York. - 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.
