Filed: Mar. 15, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 15, 2017
Summary: ORDER ROY B. DALTON, Jr. , District Judge . In this social security appeal, U.S. Magistrate Judge Joel B. Toomey recommends that the Court affirm the Commissioner's decision in part, reverse it in part, and remand the action for further proceedings. (Doc. 16.) Neither party filed objections. For the reasons set forth below, Magistrate Judge Toomey's Report and Recommendation is due to be adopted. DISCUSSION On July 22, 2016, Plaintiff appealed the Commissioner's decision denying him soci
Summary: ORDER ROY B. DALTON, Jr. , District Judge . In this social security appeal, U.S. Magistrate Judge Joel B. Toomey recommends that the Court affirm the Commissioner's decision in part, reverse it in part, and remand the action for further proceedings. (Doc. 16.) Neither party filed objections. For the reasons set forth below, Magistrate Judge Toomey's Report and Recommendation is due to be adopted. DISCUSSION On July 22, 2016, Plaintiff appealed the Commissioner's decision denying him socia..
More
ORDER
ROY B. DALTON, Jr., District Judge.
In this social security appeal, U.S. Magistrate Judge Joel B. Toomey recommends that the Court affirm the Commissioner's decision in part, reverse it in part, and remand the action for further proceedings. (Doc. 16.) Neither party filed objections. For the reasons set forth below, Magistrate Judge Toomey's Report and Recommendation is due to be adopted.
DISCUSSION
On July 22, 2016, Plaintiff appealed the Commissioner's decision denying him social security disability benefits. (Doc. 1.) In a Report and Recommendation issued February 27, 2017, U.S Magistrate Judge Joel B. Toomey concluded that the administrative law judge ("ALJ") applied the correct legal standards to the opinion of Plaintiff's treating physician, but she did not apply the correct legal standards in determining that Plaintiff was not disabled. (Doc. 16 ("R&R").) With respect to the latter conclusion, Magistrate Judge Toomey determined that: (1) the ALJ's finding that "Plaintiff's non-exertional limitations have little or no effect on the occupational base of unskilled work" was not supported by substantial evidence; and (2) the ALJ did not identify any specific jobs in the national economy that Plaintiff could perform. (Id. at 4-8.) As such, the R&R recommends that the case "be remanded so that the ALJ can attempt to provide substantial evidence to support her conclusion that Plaintiff's non-exertional limitations do not preclude a wide range of employment, either through [vocational expert] testimony or otherwise." (Id. at 7.) Alternatively, the R&R suggests that the ALJ reconsider her application of the medical-vocational grids on remand. (Id. at 8.) The parties did not object to the R&R, and the time for doing so has now passed.
The Court has examined the R&R for clear error. See Wiand v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 8:12-cv-557-T-27EAJ, 2016 WL 355490, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 28, 2016); see also Marcort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App'x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). Finding none, the Court concludes that the R&R is due to be adopted in its entirety.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. U.S. Magistrate Judge Joel B. Toomey's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 16) is ADOPTED, CONFIRMED, and made a part of this Order.
2. The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
3. On remand, the Commissioner is INSTRUCTED to:
a. provide substantial evidence, if possible, to support the finding that Plaintiff's non-exertional limitations are not severe enough to preclude a wide range of employment at the given work capacity or, alternatively, reconsider her application of the medical-vocational grids; and
b. conduct any further proceedings deemed appropriate.
4. The Clerk is DIRECTED to:
a. Enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff Christopher Michael Wheeler and against Defendant Commissioner of Social Security;
b. Terminate all pending motions; and
c. Close the file.
DONE AND ORDERED.
