Ackerman v. Social Security Administration

Filing 21

ORDER by Judge Frank H. Seay overruling 19 Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, this case is REVERSED AND REMANDED to the defendant under the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. 405(g) for proceedings consistent with this order. (adw, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
DINA F. ACKERMAN,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v. )
)
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
)
Acting Commissioner of the Social
)
Security Administration,1
)
)
Defendant.
)

CIV-14-22-FHS-KEW

ORDER
On March 27, 2015, the United States Magistrate Judge for
this District filed a Report and Recommendation in this case. An
objection was filed.

In the objection, Plaintiff argues that the

ALJ failed to perform a proper determination at steps 4 and 5 of
the sequential evaluation process and the ALJ failed to perform a
proper credibility determination.
The Report and Recommendation suggest that the case be
affirmed. However, this court declines to follow the
recommendations of the Magistrate.

The court finds this case

should be reversed and remanded for further administrative
proceedings regarding the issue of Plaintiff’s back pain being
identified as a severe impairment but not mentioned again after

1

The Court has been informed by Defendant that on February
14, 2013, Carolyn W. Colvin became the Acting Commissioner of
Social Security. Pursuant to Rule 25 (d) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, Carolyn W. Colvin is automatically substituted
for Michael J. Astrue as the defendant in this action. Thus,
this suit will proceed with this substitution in effect. See 42
U.S.C. Sec. 405 (g) (“Any action instituted in accordance with
this subsection shall survive notwithstanding any change in the
person occupying the office of Commissioner of Social Security or
any vacancy in such office.”)

Step 2.
Upon consideration of the entire record and the issues
herein, this Court finds and orders that the Report and
Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge be
OVERRULED.

Accordingly, this case is REVERSED AND REMANDED to

the defendant under the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. §405(g) for
proceedings consistent with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 30th day of March, 2015.