Harrison v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 13

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 12 of Magistrate Judge Shon Erwin...accordingly, the court reverses the final decisionof the Commissioner and remands this case for further proceedings consistent with the report and recommendation attached...this decision does not suggest any view as to whether plaintiff is or is not disabled or what result should be reached on remand. Signed by Honorable Joe Heaton on 09/22/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Report and Recommendation 12 )(lam)

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

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. CIV-13-0783-HE

ORDER
Plaintiff David Harrison filed this action seeking review of the final decision of the
Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denying his application for disability
insurance benefits. Consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), the case was referred to
Magistrate Judge Shon T. Erwin, who has recommended that the Commissioner’s decision
be reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings. The magistrate judge
concluded that one of the hypothetical questions that the administrative law judge posed to
the vocational expert did not properly reflect plaintiff’s residual functional capacity. Because
of that error, the magistrate judge concluded that the decision of the ALJ was not supported
by substantial evidence and that reversal of the Commissioner’s decision was therefore
required.
Having failed to object to the Report and Recommendation, the parties have waived
their right to appellate review of the factual and legal issues it addressed. United States v.
One Parcel of Real Property, 73 F.3d 1057, 1059-60 (10th Cir. 1996); see 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(C). Accordingly, the court adopts the 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 decision does not suggest or imply any view as to whether plaintiff is or is not disabled,
or what result should be reached on remand.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 22nd day of September, 2014.

2