CARTER V. ASTRUE
ORDER THAT MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT IS APPROVED & HIS RECOMMENDATION IS ADOPTED; PLFF'S REQUEST FOR REVIEW IS GRANTED IN PART & DENIED IN PART; & THIS CASE IS REMANDED PURSUANT TO THE FOURTH SENTENCE OF 42 U.S.C. SEC. 405(g) TO THE COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WIH THE REPORT & RECOMMENDATION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE TIMOTHY J. SAVAGE ON 2/26/09. 2/27/09 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(kw, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA DONNA L. CARTER v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration : : : : : : : CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-5525
ORDER AND NOW, this 26th day of February, 2009, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment Or, In the Alternative, Plaintiff's Motion for Remand (Document No. 8), the defendant's response (Document No. 10), the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Henry S. Perkin (Document No. 12), the lack of any objection to the Report and Recommendation, and after a thorough and independent review of the record, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. ADOPTED1; 2. PART; and 3. This case is REMANDED pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § The plaintiff's Request for Review is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN The Magistrate Judge's Report is APPROVED and his Recommendation is
405(g) to the Commissioner of Social Security for further proceedings consistent with the Report and Recommendation.
/Timothy J. Savage TIMOTHY J. SAVAGE, J.
Although we approve and adopt the m a g is tr a te judge's report and recom m e n d a tio n , we do not j o in in his characterization that the ALJ "acted in clear dereliction of her duty to explicitly weigh such e v id e n c e ." W e conclude that the ALJ m e r e ly failed to properly discuss and weigh the records from the N o r th e a s t Treatm e n t Centers and the GAF scores.
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?