Womble v. Colvin, 1:15-3017-RMG. (2016)
Court: District Court, D. South Carolina
Number: infdco20160510613
Visitors: 14
Filed: May 06, 2016
Latest Update: May 06, 2016
Summary: ORDER RICHARD MARK GERGEL , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court for judicial review ofthe final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff's application for Disability Insurance Benefits. 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 March 22, 2016, recommending that the decisio
Summary: ORDER RICHARD MARK GERGEL , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court for judicial review ofthe final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff's application for Disability Insurance Benefits. 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 March 22, 2016, recommending that the decision..
More
ORDER
RICHARD MARK GERGEL, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court for judicial review ofthe final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff's application for Disability Insurance Benefits. 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 March 22, 2016, recommending that the decision ofthe Commissioner be reversed and remanded to the agency. (Dkt. No. 11). The Magistrate Judge's recommendation is based on the Administrative Law Judge's ("ALJ") failure to properly weigh and address the Plaintiff's 100% VA disability determination. The Commissioner has filed a reply to the R & R indicating that she does not intend to file any objections to the recommendations ofthe Magistrate Judge. (Dkt. No. 13).
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 correctly concluded that the decision ofthe Commissioner should be reversed and remanded. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation as the order ofthis Court (Dkt. No. 11), 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.
Source: Leagle