POTTER v. COLVIN, 3:14-CV-333-TAV-HBG. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. Tennessee
Number: infdco20150720b05
Visitors: 15
Filed: Jul. 17, 2015
Latest Update: Jul. 17, 2015
Summary: ORDER THOMAS A. VARLAN , Chief District Judge . This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (the "R&R") entered by United States Magistrate Judge H. Bruce Guyton on June 23, 2015 [Doc. 18]. In the R&R, Magistrate Judge Guyton recommended that plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 14] be granted in part and denied in part and that defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 16] be denied in part. Further, Magistrate Judge Guyton recommended that this case be re
Summary: ORDER THOMAS A. VARLAN , Chief District Judge . This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (the "R&R") entered by United States Magistrate Judge H. Bruce Guyton on June 23, 2015 [Doc. 18]. In the R&R, Magistrate Judge Guyton recommended that plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 14] be granted in part and denied in part and that defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 16] be denied in part. Further, Magistrate Judge Guyton recommended that this case be rem..
More
ORDER
THOMAS A. VARLAN, Chief District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (the "R&R") entered by United States Magistrate Judge H. Bruce Guyton on June 23, 2015 [Doc. 18]. In the R&R, Magistrate Judge Guyton recommended that plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 14] be granted in part and denied in part and that defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 16] be denied in part. Further, Magistrate Judge Guyton recommended that this case be remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with the R&R. There have been no timely objections to the R&R, and enough time has passed since the filing of the R&R to treat any objections as having been waived. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
After a careful review of the matter, the Court is in agreement with Magistrate Judge Guyton's recommendations, which the Court adopts and incorporates into its ruling. Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS IN WHOLE the R&R [Doc. 18]. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 14] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 16] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. This case is hereby REMANDED to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with the R&R. On remand:
• The ALJ shall reassess plaintiff's RFC based on a consideration of the medical evidence as a whole, specifically considering the entirety of Dr. Kanagasegar's treatment records and the opinions of plaintiff's non-treating and non-examining physicians;
• In reassessing plaintiff's RFC, the ALJ shall consider the transcript as a whole, including the medical records of Dr. Choo and University Rheumatology Associates; and
• Once the ALJ has reassessed plaintiff's RFC based on a consideration of the record as a whole, he shall reconsider all subsequent and pertinent steps of the disability analysis based on plaintiff's reassessed RFC.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
