Gille v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 18

ORDER (See Written Order): IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: (1) The Report and Recommendation (d/e 17 ) is ADOPTED in its entirety. (2)Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (d/e 10 ) is ALLOWED, and Defendant's Motion for Summary Affirmance (d/e 13 ) is DENIED. The decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 405(g), sentence 4. THIS CASE IS CLOSED. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 3/22/2016. (VM, ilcd)

E-FILED

Tuesday, 22 March, 2016 11:58:01 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
GLENN E. GILLE,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
)
Commissioner of Social Security, )
)
Defendant.
)

No. 14-cv-3218

ORDER
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge:
This matter comes before the Court on the Report and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Tom
Schanzle-Haskins (d/e 17). Judge Schanzle-Haskins recommends
that this Court allow Plaintiff Glenn Gille’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (d/e 10), deny Defendant Commissioner of Social
Security’s Motion for Summary Affirmance (d/e 13), and reverse and
remand the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. The
Commissioner determined that Plaintiff was not disabled and,
therefore, denied Plaintiff=s application for Supplemental Security
Income.
Page 1 of 3

Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due on or
before March 10, 2016. Neither party filed objections.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3), the Court
Amay accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive
further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with
instructions.@ Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The Court reviews de novo
any part of the Report and Recommendation to which a proper
objection has been made. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). AIf no objection
or only partial objection is made, the district court judge reviews
those unobjected portions for clear error.@ Johnson v. Zema Sys.
Corp., 170 F. 3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999) (also noting that a party
who fails to object to the report and recommendation waives
appellate review of the factual and legal questions).
Judge Schanzle-Haskins found the Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ) committed reversible error when he failed to ask the vocational
expert hypotheticals that covered all of the material evidence,
specifically hypotheticals regarding the effect of needing to miss work
to visit the doctor, as Plaintiff would. Judge Schanzle-Haskins did
not reach the question of whether the Appeals Council erred in

Page 2 of 3

rejecting as not new or material the new evidence submitted after the
ALJ’s decision because on remand the ALJ can consider the evidence
that was submitted to the Appeals Council as well as any other
relevant evidence that may be procedurally appropriate.
After reviewing the record, the Report and Recommendation,
the parties= motions and memoranda, and the applicable law, this
Court finds no clear error.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
(1)

The Report and Recommendation (d/e 17) is ADOPTED

in its entirety.
(2)

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (d/e 10) is

ALLOWED, and Defendant=s Motion for Summary Affirmance (d/e
13) is DENIED.

The decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED

and REMANDED for further proceedings pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
405(g), sentence 4.

THIS CASE IS CLOSED.

ENTER: March 22, 2016
FOR THE COURT:
s/ Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 3 of 3