Wilcox v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

Filing 26

ORDER: Adopting Findings and Recommendation 16 and remand this matter for the immediate payment of benefits. Signed on 9/21/2011 by Judge Malcolm F. Marsh. (sd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Portland Division
RHONDA W. WILCOX,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
ROBERT BARON
KATHRYN TASSINARI
Harder, Wells, Baron & Manning, P.C.
474 Willamette, Suite 200
Eugene, OR 97401
[phone]
DWIGHT C. HOLTON
United States Attorney
ADRIAN L. BROWN
Assistant United States Attorney
1000 S.W. Third Avenue, Suite 600
Portland, OR 97204-2902
[phone]

1 - ORDER

Civil No. 03:09-CV-6349-HU
ORDER

THOMAS M. ELSBERRY
Special Assistant United States Attorney
Office of the General Counsel
Social Security Administration
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900 MS/901
Seattle, WA 98104-7075
[phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
MARSH, Judge.
Magistrate Judge Hubel issued a Findings and Recommendation
on June 27, 2011, recommending that the Commissioner's October
7, 2009, final decision denying plaintiff's April 27, 2004,
application for disability insurance benefits pursuant to Title
II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1381 et seq, be
reversed, and that this case be remanded to the Commissioner for
the immediate payment of benefits.
objections (doc. 24).

Defendant has filed timely

Accordingly, the matter is now before me

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
The court reviews de novo those portions of the Magistrate's
Findings and Recommendation to which the Commissioner has
objected.

See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); McDonnell Douglas Corp.

v. Commodore Business Machines, Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th
Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982).
After de novo review, I find no error by the magistrate
judge in his painstaking analysis of the record, particularly
relating to plaintiff's credibility, the disability opinion of

2 - ORDER

treating physician, K. Annette Weller, M.D., and the lay witness
evidence presented by plaintiff's husband.
Accordingly, I ADOPT the Findings and Recommendation (#16)
of Magistrate Judge Hubel and remand this matter for the
immediate payment of benefits.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this

21

day of September, 2011.

/s/ Malcolm F. Marsh
Malcolm F. Marsh
United States District Judge

3 - ORDER