Goodman v. Berrryhill, 5:17-1343-RMG. (2018)
Court: District Court, D. South Carolina
Number: infdco20180803c28
Visitors: 18
Filed: Aug. 02, 2018
Latest Update: Aug. 02, 2018
Summary: ORDER RICHARD MARK GERGEL , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court for judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiffs application for Supplemental Security Income ("SSI"). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for pretrial handling. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (R & R) on July 24, 2018, recommending that the dec
Summary: ORDER RICHARD MARK GERGEL , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court for judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiffs application for Supplemental Security Income ("SSI"). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for pretrial handling. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (R & R) on July 24, 2018, recommending that the deci..
More
ORDER
RICHARD MARK GERGEL, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court for judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiffs application for Supplemental Security Income ("SSI"). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for pretrial handling. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (R & R) on July 24, 2018, recommending that the decision of the Commissioner be reversed and remanded to the agency because of the failure of the Commissioner to weigh and reconcile new and material evidence received from Plaintiffs treating physician, Dr. Joseph Logan, at the Appeals Council stage with other record evidence to the contrary, as required by Meyer v. Astrue, 662 F.3d 700, 706 (4th Cir. 2011). (Dkt. No. 26 at 21-23). The Commissioner and the Plaintiff have advised the Court that they do not intend to file objections to the R & R. (Dkt. No. 28).
The Court has reviewed the R & R and the record evidence and finds that the Magistrate Judge has ably addressed the factual and legal issues in this matter. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation as the order of this Court, REVERSES the decision of the Commissioner pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and REMANDS the matter to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with this order.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle