Arnold v. Saul, 8:18-3255-RMG. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. South Carolina
Number: infdco20191127j06
Visitors: 15
Filed: Nov. 26, 2019
Latest Update: Nov. 26, 2019
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 October 15, 2019, recommending that th
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 October 15, 2019, recommending that the..
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 October 15, 2019, recommending that the decision of the Commissioner be reversed and remanded to the agency because of the Administrative Law Judge's ("ALJ's") failure to explain how finding of moderate difficulties with concentration, persistence, and pace were addressed in the RFC and to address Plaintiffs ability to stay on task in light of her persistent symptoms of mental illness. (Dkt. No. 23 at 16-21 ).1 The Defendant has filed objections to the R & R and the Plaintiff has filed a reply. (Dkt. No. 26, 27).
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, and the objections of the Commissioner are largely rehashing issues already addressed by the Magistrate Judge. 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.
FootNotes
1. As the Magistrate Judge noted, these symptoms included evidence that, even on medication, Plaintiff "sees things that other people do not see on a weekly basis; she hears voices talking and whispering but cannot make it out; the voices keep her awake; and she often thinks someone is going to break into her house ..." (Dkt. No. 23 at 20).
Source: Leagle