Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

MAZYCK v. COLVIN, 4:13-1619-RMG. (2014)

Court: District Court, D. South Carolina Number: infdco20141119f90 Visitors: 27
Filed: Nov. 18, 2014
Latest Update: Nov. 18, 2014
Summary: ORDER RICHARD MARK GERGEL, District Judge. Plaintiff has brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) seeking judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying his claim for Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") and Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB"). In accord with 28 U.S.C. 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 DSC, this matter was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for pre-trial handling. The Magistrate Judge issued a Repor
More

ORDER

RICHARD MARK GERGEL, District Judge.

Plaintiff has brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) seeking judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying his claim for Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") and Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB"). In accord with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 DSC, this matter was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for pre-trial handling. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation ("R &R") on November 14,2014 recommending that the decision of the Commissioner be reversed and remanded to the agency because of a failure to consider all of Plaintiff's relevant medical records in determining whether Plaintiff met the requirements of the 12.03(B) Listing for schizophrenia and to address the relevant standards and evidence in regard to the 12.03(C) Listing. (Dkt. No. 26 at 15-19). The Commissioner promptly responded to the R & R by advising the Court she did not intend to file objections. (Dkt. No. 28).

Having reviewed the R & R and the relevant factual and legal issues involved in this matter, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge ably addressed the critical issues on appeal and appropriately recommended reversal of the Commissioner's decision and remand of the matter to the agency for further action. Therefore, the Court adopts the R & R in this matter (Dkt. No. 26) as the order of the Court. The decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and REMANDED to the agency for further action consistent with this order.

AND IT IS SO 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