FRAME v. COLVIN

Filing 39

ORDER RE: 38 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The court REMANDS this case to the Magistrate Judge, with instructions to conduct an analysis pursuant to the Allord standard. After receiving this supplemental report, the court will promptly conduct its clear error review. Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 9/8/2015.(TMD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
JEANNIE K. FRAME,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
CAROLYN COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

1:14-cv-00234-RLY-DKL

ORDER ON THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Jeannie K. Frame, Plaintiff, filed a request for judicial review of the final decision
of Carolyn Colvin, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, denying
Plaintiff’s application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social
Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 401 et seq. The court referred the matter to the Magistrate
Judge, who issued her Report and Recommendation. The Magistrate Judge concluded
that the ALJ’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence, and recommended that
the decision denying benefits be reversed with instructions to award benefits. Neither
party filed an objection. Accordingly, the court reviews the Report and Recommendation
for clear error. Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999). Upon
conducting a review, the court “may 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).

1

Rather than recommending a remand for reconsideration by the ALJ, the
Magistrate Judge recommended that the court remand with instructions to grant benefits.
The Seventh Circuit cautioned, “An award of benefits is appropriate . . . only if all factual
issues involved in the entitlement determination have been resolved and the resulting
record supports only one conclusion—that the applicant qualifies for disability benefits.”
Allord v. Astrue, 631 F.3d 411, 417 (7th Cir. 2011). This standard exists “because a court
does not have the authority to award disability benefits on grounds other than those
provided under 42 U.S.C. § 423.” Briscoe v. Barnhart, 425 F.3d 345, 357 (7th Cir.
2005). The Report and Recommendation does not mention this test, and thus does not
address whether (1) all factual issues have been resolved or (2) the only conclusion
supported by the record is that Plaintiff is disabled. Without any analysis on the specific
recommendation, this court is unable to determine whether the Magistrate Judge
committed clear error.
Therefore, the court REMANDS this case to the Magistrate Judge, with
instructions to conduct an analysis pursuant to the Allord standard. After receiving this
supplemental report, the court will promptly conduct its clear error review.

SO ORDERED this 8th day of September 2015.
__________________________________
RICHARD L. YOUNG, CHIEF JUDGE
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Distributed Electronically to Registered Counsel of Record.

2