CRUMBLEY v. COLVIN, 5:13-CV-291 (MTT). (2014)
Court: District Court, M.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20140711a91
Visitors: 9
Filed: Jul. 10, 2014
Latest Update: Jul. 10, 2014
Summary: ORDER MARC T. TREADWELL, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Charles H. Weigle. (Doc. 16). The Magistrate Judge, having reviewed the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636 and 42 U.S.C. 405(g), recommends remanding the Commissioner's denial of the Plaintiff's claim for Social Security disability insurance benefits because the record contains prejudicial evidentiary gaps, which make meaningful judicial review impossible. Specifica
Summary: ORDER MARC T. TREADWELL, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Charles H. Weigle. (Doc. 16). The Magistrate Judge, having reviewed the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636 and 42 U.S.C. 405(g), recommends remanding the Commissioner's denial of the Plaintiff's claim for Social Security disability insurance benefits because the record contains prejudicial evidentiary gaps, which make meaningful judicial review impossible. Specifical..
More
ORDER
MARC T. TREADWELL, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Charles H. Weigle. (Doc. 16). The Magistrate Judge, having reviewed the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), recommends remanding the Commissioner's denial of the Plaintiff's claim for Social Security disability insurance benefits because the record contains prejudicial evidentiary gaps, which make meaningful judicial review impossible. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge found that the ALJ did not develop a full and fair record by failing to obtain necessary records from one of the Plaintiff's treating physicians. The Magistrate Judge further found that the ALJ erred by discounting the Plaintiff's subjective testimony regarding her alleged mental impairments. Neither Party filed an objection to the Recommendation.
The Court has reviewed the Recommendation, and the Court accepts and adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. The Recommendation is adopted and made the order of this Court. The Commissioner's decision is REMANDED to the Commissioner to reevaluate Dr. Hammond's questionnaire and the Plaintiff's subjective testimony regarding her mental limitations.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
