MCNAMARA v. ASTRUE

Filing 15

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE M. FAITH ANGELL. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR REVIEW IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR REVIEW IN T HE NATURE OF A REQUEST TO REMAND THIS MATTER FOR FURTHER ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR REVIEW IN THE NATURE OF A REQUEST TO GRANT SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY INSURANCE BENEFITS, ETC., IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL MARK THIS CASE CLOSED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JAMES KNOLL GARDNER ON 8/25/11. 8/26/11 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(ky, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
RUTH ANN MCNAMARA,
Plaintiff
vs.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner
of Social Security Administration,
Defendant

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action
No. 10-cv-4555

O R D E R
NOW, this 25th day of August, 2011, upon consideration
of Plaintiff’s Brief and Statement of Issues in Support of Her
Request for Review, which brief was filed December 20, 2010; upon
consideration of Defendant’s Response to Request for Review by
Plaintiff, which response was filed January 11, 2011; upon
consideration of Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendant’s Response to
Request for Review by Plaintiff, which reply was filed
January 13, 2011; upon consideration of the Report and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge M. Faith Angell
filed July 18, 2011; upon consideration of plaintiff’s Civil
Complaint filed September 9, 2010, defendant’s Answer filed
November 5, 2010, and after a thorough review of the record in
this matter; it appearing that neither party filed objections to
Magistrate Judge Angell’s Report and Recommendation; it further
appearing that Magistrate Judge Angell’s Report and

Recommendation correctly determined the legal and factual issues
presented in this case,
IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Angell’s Report and
Recommendation filed July 18, 2011 is approved and adopted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for
review is granted in part and denied in part.1
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for
review in the nature of a request to remand this matter for
further administrative proceedings is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, consistent with the Report
and Recommendation, this matter is remanded to the Commissioner
of Social Security for the Administrative Law Judge to:
(1)

adequately explain the reasons for giving the
residual functional capacity assessment of
Dr. Louis Tedesco, M.D., the state agency
reviewing physician, greater weight than the
report and medical records of Dr. Robert
Schwartzman, M.D., plaintiff’s neurologist
and treating physician;

(2)

develop the record pursuant to Social
Security Ruling 87-6 by obtaining a record of

1

Plaintiff requests that the Commissioner’s final decision be
reversed and the matter remanded for further administrative proceedings.
(Plaintiff’s brief at 15.) Although unclear from plaintiff’s brief, I
construe the request for reversal to include a grant of Social Security
Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income payments to
plaintiff during the alleged period of disability, which is consistent with
the relief sought in plaintiff’s Civil Complaint at page 3.
Because Magistrate Judge Angell correctly determined that remand
of this matter is appropriate to more fully develop the administrative record,
I grant plaintiff’s request to remand the matter to the Commissioner.
However, to the extent plaintiff seeks a grant of benefits, that request is
denied.

-2-

plaintiff’s blood drug levels, either from
Dr. Robert Schwartzman, M.D. (if he has any
such records), or by ordering an examination
of plaintiff’s blood drug levels, to be paid
for by the Social Security Administration;
and
(3)

develop the record with respect to
plaintiff’s claims that her past work as a
college professor and home repairman should
not be considered substantial gainful
activity because it was performed under
special conditions, as listed in 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.1573(c), that took into account
plaintiff’s impairments.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for
review in the nature of a request to grant Social Security
Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income
payments to plaintiff during the alleged period of disability is
denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall
mark this case closed for statistical purposes.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ James Knoll Gardner
James Knoll Gardner
United States District Judge

-3-