Baker v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 4/30/2018. (KEK)

FILED
2018 Apr-30 AM 10:00
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHEASTERN DIVISION

SHEILA CHRISTINE BAKER,
Plaintiff
vs.
COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant

)
)
)
)
) Case No. 5:16-cv-01458-MHH
)
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM OPINION
On March 15, 2018, the magistrate judge entered a report in which he
recommended that the Court reverse the Commissioner’s decision and remand the
case to the Commissioner for consideration of the Office of Personnel
Management’s disability determination consistent with SSR 06-03p and applicable
case law. (Doc. 13, p. 27). No party has filed objections to the magistrate judge’s
report and recommendation.
A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or part, the findings
or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). A
district court reviews legal conclusions in a report de novo and reviews for plain
error factual findings to which no objection is made. Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d
776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 745, 749 (11th

Cir. 1988); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed. Appx. 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).
The Court has considered the record, including the magistrate judge’s report
and recommendation.

The magistrate judge correctly found that the ALJ

committed reversible error by omitting from the disability analysis a discussion of
another agency’s disability determination, the weight accorded such determination,
and the reasons for the weight assigned. (Doc. 13, pp. 6-13). Therefore, the Court
adopts the magistrate judge’s finding and remands this case for further proceedings
consistent with that finding.1
The Court will enter a separate order consistent with this memorandum
opinion.
DONE and ORDERED this April 30, 2018.

_________________________________
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

The Court has not considered the balance of the magistrate judge’s analysis because the
Court finds that the error discussed above, standing alone, warrants remand.
2