UDELL v. ASTRUE
ORDERED THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION BE APPROVED AND ADOPTED. THE PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR REVIEW BE GRANTED, AND THE MATTER IS REMANDED TO THE COMMISSIONER FOR FURTHER REVIEW CONSISTENT WITH MAGISTRATE JUDGE RICE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. SIGNED BY CHIEF JUDGE PETRESE B. TUCKER ON 6/6/2013. 6/10/2013 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(sg, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
RACHEL B. UDELL
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of the
Social Security Administration,
AND NOW, this ____ day of June, 2013, after careful and independent review of
the Report and Recommendation of Timothy R. Rice, United States Magistrate Judge, it is hereby
ORDERED as follows:
The Plaintiff’s Request for Review be GRANTED; and
The Report and Recommendation be APPROVED and ADOPTED;
The matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further review
consistent with Magistrate Judge Rice’s Report and Recommendation.1
While this court must uphold any factual determination made by the administrative law judge (ALJ)
supported by substantial evidence, a decision supported by substantial evidence yet based upon incorrect
legal standards may be overturned. Payton v. Barnhart, 416 F. Supp. 2d 385, 387 (E.D. Pa. 2006). In
this case, the ALJ failed to consider whether the Plaintiff suffered from a medically determinable mental
impairment in the form of an anxiety disorder and whether it constituted a severe impairment. The ALJ
cannot reject evidence or simply ignore evidence for no reason or for the wrong reason. Further, the
Commissioner has not filed any objections identifying factual errors in the magistrate’s report or pointing
to other evidence which would render the magistrate’s conclusions unsupported by the record.
Accordingly, and for the reasons stated in the magistrate’s Report and Recommendation, this Court enters
judgment in favor of the Plaintiff.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Petrese B. Tucker
Hon. Petrese B. Tucker, C.J.
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?