Brown v. Astrue

Filing 26

ORDER ADOPTING 25 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, granting in part, denying in part 14 motion for summary judgment; granting in part, denying in part 16 Motion to Affirm filed by Michael J. Astrue. Remanded in part as set out herein. Separate judgment will be entered. Signed by District Judge Tom S. Lee on 11/1/10 (LWE)

Download PDF
Brown v. Astrue Doc. 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI EASTERN DIVISION CAMELLIA D. BROWN VS. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ORDER This cause is before the court on the report and recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson, entered on October 8, 2010, remanding the case to the administrative law judge for further consideration, and the court having fully reviewed the report and recommendation and being duly advised in the premise, finds that the report and recommendation should be adopted by the court. Accordingly, it is ordered that plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part. It is PLAINTIFF CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:08CV135TSL-LRA DEFENDANT further ordered that defendant's motion for an order affirming the commissioner is granted in part and denied in part. It is further ordered that the Commissioner's decision that claimant's impairments did not meet or medically equal any listing is reversed and that the matter is remanded pursuant to sentence 4 of 42 U.S.C. 405(g). On remand, the Administrative Law Judge is directed to hold a new evidentiary hearing and reconsider the medical opinion on the equivalency as to Listing 12.05, in accordance with SSR 96-6P. Dockets.Justia.com A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. SO ORDERED this 1st day of November, 2010. /s/ Tom S. Lee______________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

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?