Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

COOK v. ASTRUE, 0:11-1625-JFA-PJG. (2012)

Court: District Court, D. South Carolina Number: infdco20120514873 Visitors: 7
Filed: May 11, 2012
Latest Update: May 11, 2012
Summary: ORDER JOSEPH F. ANDERSON, Jr., District Judge. This is an action brought by the plaintiff, Sandy Cook, pursuant to sections 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) of the Social Security Act, as amended, to obtain judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("Commissioner") denying her claims for Disability Insurance Benefits. The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action 1 has prepared a Report and Recommendation wherein she suggests that the Commissioner's
More

ORDER

JOSEPH F. ANDERSON, Jr., District Judge.

This is an action brought by the plaintiff, Sandy Cook, pursuant to sections 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) of the Social Security Act, as amended, to obtain judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("Commissioner") denying her claims for Disability Insurance Benefits.

The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a Report and Recommendation wherein she suggests that the Commissioner's decision to deny benefits should be reversed under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and remanded to the Commissioner further proceedings.

Specifically, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the ALJ be directed to further consider all the evidence as to the totality of the circumstances of plaintiff's claim, including the evidence addressed in her motion to admit new evidence and the evidence related to the period in which she was receiving unemployment benefits.

The parties were advised of their right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation. The plaintiff did not file objections. The Commissioner, however, filed a notice stating that he would not file objections to the Report. The Commissioner also notes that its response should not be construed as a concession by the Commissioner that his administrative decision denying benefits was not substantially justified.

After a careful review of the record, including the findings of the ALJ, the briefs from the plaintiff and the Commissioner, and the Magistrate Judge's Report, the court finds the Report provides an accurate summary of the facts in the instant case and that the conclusions are proper. The Magistrate Judge's findings are hereby specifically incorporated herein by reference.

Accordingly, this action is reversed pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and is remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings as stated herein and in the Magistrate Judge's Report.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. The Magistrate Judge's review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objection is made and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer