Shott v. Saul, CIV-18-1018-D. (2019)
Court: District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
Number: infdco20191011q97
Visitors: 17
Filed: Oct. 10, 2019
Latest Update: Oct. 10, 2019
Summary: ORDER TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI , Chief District Judge . This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Gary M. Purcell pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and (C). Judge Purcell finds that the Commissioner's decision denying Plaintiff's application for disability insurance benefits should be reversed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 405(g), and the matter should be remanded for further administrative proceedings. Specifically, Judge
Summary: ORDER TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI , Chief District Judge . This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Gary M. Purcell pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and (C). Judge Purcell finds that the Commissioner's decision denying Plaintiff's application for disability insurance benefits should be reversed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 405(g), and the matter should be remanded for further administrative proceedings. Specifically, Judge P..
More
ORDER
TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI, Chief District Judge.
This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Gary M. Purcell pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C). Judge Purcell finds that the Commissioner's decision denying Plaintiff's application for disability insurance benefits should be reversed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and the matter should be remanded for further administrative proceedings. Specifically, Judge Purcell finds that the administrative law judge did not satisfy the requirement at step three of the sequential analysis to discuss the relevant evidence and explain on the record why Plaintiff's impairment did not meet or equal Listing 14.02A.
No party has filed a timely objection nor requested additional time to object. Upon consideration, the Court finds that the parties have waived further judicial review.1
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 22] is ADOPTED in its entirety. The Commissioner's decision is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Report and Recommendation. A separate judgment and order of remand shall be entered.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. See Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656 (10th Cir. 1991); see also United States v. 2121 E. 30th St., 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996).
Source: Leagle
