Dickson v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 19

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 18 of Magistrate Judge Shon Erwin and reverses the final decision of the Commissioner and remands case for further proceedings consistent with the report and recommendation. Signed by Honorable Joe Heaton on 07/22/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Report & Recommendation)(lam)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
CLARA D. DICKSON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of the Social,
Security Administration
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. CIV-13-442-HE

ORDER
Plaintiff Clara D. Dickson filed this action seeking judicial review of the final decision
of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denying her application for
supplemental security income benefits under the Social Security Act. Consistent with 28
U.S.C. § 636(b), the case was referred to Magistrate Judge Shon T. Erwin, who recommends
that the Commissioner's decision be reversed and the matter remanded for further
proceedings.
The magistrate judge found the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred in
improperly rejecting the opinion evidence and treatment notes of plaintiff’s mental health
counselor in a conclusory fashion. He concluded the ALJ “failed to engage in any
meaningful consideration of [the counselor’s] treatment notes or opinions under SSR 06-3p.”
Doc. #18, p. 8. He also noted that the ALJ should, on remand, “take care to explain any
significantly probative and conflicting evidence he chooses to reject.” Id.
The parties, having failed to object to the Report and Recommendation, waived their

right to appellate review of the factual and legal issues it addressed. United States v.
OneParcel of Real Propertv, 73 F.3d 1057, 1059-60 (10th Cir. 1996); see 28 U.S.C.
§636(b)(1)(C). Accordingly, the court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Erwin’s Report and
Recommendation, REVERSES the final decision of the Commissioner and REMANDS the
case for further proceedings consistent with the Report and Recommendation, a copy of
which is attached to this order. This does not suggest or imply any view as to whether the
claimant is or is not disabled, or what result should be reached on remand.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 22nd day of July, 2014.