Cameron v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 3:2019cv00462 - Document 23 (E.D. Va. 2020)

Court Description: FINAL ORDER. The Court: 1) ADOPTS the findings and recommendations as set forth in the R&R, (ECF No. 22 ); 2) GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 14 ); 3) DENIES Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 16 ); 4 ) VACATES and REMANDS the final decision of the Commissioner pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); and, 5) DIRECTS the Clerk to CLOSE this case. See Order for details. It is SO ORDERED. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 9/1/2020. (sbea,)

Download PDF
Cameron v. Commissioner of Social Security Doc. 23 Case 3:19-cv-00462-MHL Document 23 Filed 09/01/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID# 140 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division TERESA C., Plaintiff, v. ANDREW M. SAUL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL NO. 3:19cv462 (MHL) FINAL ORDER This matter comes before the Court on the August 17, 2020 Report and Recommendation (the “R&R”) issued by the Honorable Elizabeth W. Hanes, United States Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 22.). The R&R recommends vacating and remanding this action because the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred at step four in the five–step sequential analysis when determining that Plaintiff could return to her past relevant work. (R&R 7–21, ECF No. 22.) The R&R further recommends finding that the ALJ erred at step five when concluding that Plaintiff possessed skills transferable to other occupations for jobs existing in the national economy. (Id.) The R&R states that the ALJ failed to clarify ambiguities in the record relating to step four and five of the sequential analysis. (Id.) Because the ALJ failed to apply the appropriate test or properly explain her conclusions, the R&R suggests that the Court cannot meaningfully review the ALJ’s decision. (Id.) No objections to the R&R have been filed and the time to do so has expired. Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:19-cv-00462-MHL Document 23 Filed 09/01/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID# 141 Finding no error, the Court: (1) ADOPTS the findings and recommendations as set forth in the R&R, (ECF No. 22); (2) GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 14); (3) DENIES Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 16); (4) VACATES and REMANDS the final decision of the Commissioner pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); and, (5) DIRECTS the Clerk to CLOSE this case. Let the Clerk of the Court send a copy of this Order to all counsel of record. It is SO ORDERED. /s/ //ss/ M. Hannah Lauck United States District Judge Date: September 1, 2020 Richmond, Virginia

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.