Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Castrovianci v. Commissioner of Social Security, 2:17-cv-179-FtM-99CM. (2018)

Court: District Court, M.D. Florida Number: infdco20180829988 Visitors: 6
Filed: Aug. 28, 2018
Latest Update: Aug. 28, 2018
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER JOHN E. STEELE , Senior District Judge . This matter is before the Court on consideration of Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando's Report and Recommendation (Doc. #25), filed on August 2, 2018, recommending that the Decision of the Commissioner be reversed and remanded with instructions to the Commissioner. No objections have been filed, and the time to do so has expired. The Court reviews the Commissioner's decision to determine if it is supported by substantial evidence and
More

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on consideration of Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando's Report and Recommendation (Doc. #25), filed on August 2, 2018, recommending that the Decision of the Commissioner be reversed and remanded with instructions to the Commissioner. No objections have been filed, and the time to do so has expired.

The Court reviews the Commissioner's decision to determine if it is supported by substantial evidence and based upon proper legal standards. Crawford v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1158 (11th Cir. 2004)(citing Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1439 (11th Cir. 1997)). Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance, and is such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005)(citing Crawford, 363 F.3d at 1158-59). Even if the evidence preponderates against the Commissioner's findings, the Court must affirm if the decision reached is supported by substantial evidence. Crawford, 363 F.3d at 1158-59 (citing Martin v. Sullivan, 894 F.2d 1520, 1529 (11th Cir. 1990)). The Court does not decide facts anew, make credibility judgments, reweigh the evidence, or substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner. Moore, 405 F.3d at 1211 (citing Bloodsworth v. Heckler, 703 F.2d 1233, 1239 (11th Cir. 1983)); Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206, 1210 (11th Cir. 2005)(citing Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1240 n.8 (11th Cir. 2004)). The Court reviews the Commissioner's conclusions of law under a de novo standard of review. Ingram v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 496 F.3d 1253, 1260 (11th Cir. 2007)(citing Martin, 894 F.2d at 1529).

The Magistrate Judge found that the ALJ did not properly address plaintiff's limitations in concentration, persistence or pace, or plaintiff's limitations in social functioning in the ALJ's assessment of plaintiff's residual functional capacity. As a result, the Magistrate Judge concluded that substantial evidence did not support the ALJ's decision. After an independent review, the Court agrees with the findings and recommendations in the Report and Recommendation.

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED:

1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. #25) is accepted and adopted by the Court.

2. The Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is reversed and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner of Social Security pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) so that the Commissioner can:

A. Reevaluate Plaintiff's RFC in light of his alleged mental impairments, which may require additional opinion evidence; B. Reevaluate whether there are jobs available in significant numbers that Plaintiff can perform given his RFC, which may require additional testimony from a vocational expert; and C. Make any other determinations consistent with this Report and Recommendation, or in the interests of justice.

3. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly, and close the file.

DONE and ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer