Werle v. Astrue

Filing 22

ORDER adopting 20 Report and Recommendations; granting 11 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 14 Cross Motion for Summary Judgment; pla's claim for benefits remanded to the Commissioner of Social Security Admin for an immediate payment of benefits, beginning 2/6/06 & for further proceedings w/ regard to the period prior to 2/6/06. Signed by Judge Frank R Zapata on 6/16/09. See attached pdf for complete information.(KMF, )

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 405(g) of the Social Security Act for judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, denying her application for benefits. This matter was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for all pretrial proceedings and report and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) and LRCiv 72.1 and LRCiv 72.2, Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Stacy A. Werle, Plaintiff, v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV 07-400-TUC-FRZ (HCE) ORDER of Arizona. On April 7, 2009, Magistrate Judge Hector C. Estrada issued his in-depth Report and Recommendation, recommending that the District Court, after its independent review of the record herein, "(1) grant Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment . . . to the extent that: (a) this matter should be remanded for an immediate payment of benefits for the period beginning February 6, 2006; and (b) this matter should be remanded for further proceedings with regard to the period prior to February 6, 2006 for determination of the date of onset of the limitations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 identified by Dr. Ramirez on February 6, 2006; for determination of the impact of the side effects of Plaintiff's medication for mental impairments, back pain, and pain associated with kidney stones; and for further questioning of a vocational expert; and (2) deny Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment . . .." The parties were given notice that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b), any party may serve and file written objections within ten days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. No objections were filed. The Court, having made an independent review of the record herein, including the thorough procedural and medical history underlying Plaintiff's claimed psychiatric and medical disabilities, including back pain and kidney stones, under the relevant legal standards of review, as set forth in the Report and Recommendation, agrees with the findings of the Magistrate Judge and orders as follows: IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Estrada's Report and Recommendation [Doc. #20] is hereby ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the findings of fact and conclusions of law by this Court; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. #11] is GRANTED in accordance with the findings and conclusions of the Report and Recommendation; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. #14] is DENIED; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's claim for benefits is REMANDED to the Commissioner of Social Security Administration for an immediate payment of benefits for the period beginning February 6, 2006, in accordance with the Report and Recommendation; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's claim for benefits is REMANDED to the Commissioner of Social Security Administration for further proceedings with regard to the period prior to February 6, 2006 for determination of the date of onset of the limitations identified by Dr. Ramirez on February 6, 2006; for determination of the impact of the side effects of Plaintiff's medication for mental impairments, back pain, and pain associated with -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 kidney stones; and for further questioning of a vocational expert, in accordance with the Report and Recommendation; Judgment shall be entered accordingly. DATED this 16th day of June, 2009. -3-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?