HORN v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 1:13cv610. (2014)
Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20141014k84
Visitors: 10
Filed: Oct. 10, 2014
Latest Update: Oct. 10, 2014
Summary: ORDER MICHAEL R. BARRETT, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation filed by the Magistrate Judge on September 17, 2014 (Doc. 19). Proper notice has been given to the parties under 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C), including notice that the parties would waive further appeal if they failed to file objections to the Report and Recommendation in a timely manner. United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). No objections to the Magistrate Judge's Re
Summary: ORDER MICHAEL R. BARRETT, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation filed by the Magistrate Judge on September 17, 2014 (Doc. 19). Proper notice has been given to the parties under 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C), including notice that the parties would waive further appeal if they failed to file objections to the Report and Recommendation in a timely manner. United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). No objections to the Magistrate Judge's Rep..
More
ORDER
MICHAEL R. BARRETT, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation filed by the Magistrate Judge on September 17, 2014 (Doc. 19).
Proper notice has been given to the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), including notice that the parties would waive further appeal if they failed to file objections to the Report and Recommendation in a timely manner. United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). No objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation have been filed.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 19) of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ADOPTED.
The decision by the Commissioner is REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) consistent with the recommendation by the Magistrate Judge. Specifically, the Administrative Law Judge should carefully reevaluate: a) the weight given to the medical opinions; b) the effect of Plaintiff's obesity; and c) reevaluation the findings for the B criteria relative to Plaintiff's psychiatric impairment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
