Filed: May 21, 2012
Latest Update: May 21, 2012
Summary: ORDER JAMES KNOLL GARDNER, District Judge. NOW, this 21 st day of May, 2012, upon consideration of the following documents: (1) Decision of Administrative Law Judge Katie H. Pierce dated July 15, 2009 1 ; (2) Complaint filed October 28, 2010; (3) Answer filed January 10, 2011; (4) Motion for Summary Judgment filed by plaintiff on February 28, 2011; together with Brief in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment; (5) Defendant's Response to Request for Review of Plaintiff, whic
Summary: ORDER JAMES KNOLL GARDNER, District Judge. NOW, this 21 st day of May, 2012, upon consideration of the following documents: (1) Decision of Administrative Law Judge Katie H. Pierce dated July 15, 2009 1 ; (2) Complaint filed October 28, 2010; (3) Answer filed January 10, 2011; (4) Motion for Summary Judgment filed by plaintiff on February 28, 2011; together with Brief in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment; (5) Defendant's Response to Request for Review of Plaintiff, which..
More
ORDER
JAMES KNOLL GARDNER, District Judge.
NOW, this 21st day of May, 2012, upon consideration of the following documents:
(1) Decision of Administrative Law Judge Katie H. Pierce dated July 15, 20091;
(2) Complaint filed October 28, 2010;
(3) Answer filed January 10, 2011;
(4) Motion for Summary Judgment filed by plaintiff on February 28, 2011; together with
Brief in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment;
(5) Defendant's Response to Request for Review of Plaintiff, which response was filed May 4, 2011;
(6) Reply Brief in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, which reply brief was filed May 20, 2011;
(7) Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Henry S. Perkin filed September 28, 2011;
(8) Plaintiff's Objection[s] to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, which objections were filed October 12, 2011; and
(9) Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, which response was filed October 25, 2011;
after a thorough de novo review of the record in this matter; and for the reasons expressed in the accompanying Opinion,
IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Perkin's Report and Recommendation is approved and adopted in part, and rejected in part.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that page one, line eight, through page six, line eight, and line two, page nine through line nine, page sixteen of Magistrate Judge Perkin's Report and Recommendation is approved and adopted here.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's objections to the Report and Recommendation are sustained in part and overruled in part.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's objection alleging that the Administrative Law Judge's conclusions regarding plaintiff's sleep disorder are not supported by substantial evidence is sustained.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's objection alleging that Magistrate Judge Perkin ignored highly probative evidence of a psychiatric impairment is overruled.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's objection alleging that Magistrate Judge Perkin erroneously accepted both the Administrative Law Judge's reliance on flawed vocational expert testimony and her conclusion that plaintiff was capable of doing light work is overruled.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's request for review is granted in part and denied in part.2
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's request for review in the nature of a request to remand is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner dated July 15, 2009 and affirmed by the Appeals Council on July 29, 2010 which denied benefits to plaintiff Charles Jones is reversed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that judgment is entered in favor of plaintiff Charles Jones and against Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is remanded in accordance with the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration for further proceedings consistent with this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in all other respects, plaintiff's request for review is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mark the above-captioned matter closed for statistical purposes.
