BROWN v. ASTRUE

Filing 12

ORDER THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED. MS. BROWN'S REQUEST IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION IS REVERSED TO THE EXTENT THE MATTER IS REMANDED TO THE COMMISSIONER UNDER SENTENCE FOUR OF 42 USC 405(g) FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF MS. BROWN, REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS REMAND ONLY. THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL MARK THIS CASE CLOSED STATISTICALLY FOR ALL PURPOSES INCLUDING STATISTICS.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE GENE E.K. PRATTER ON 3/7/2014. 3/7/2014 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(kp, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
SONIA BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of the
Social Security Administration,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION

No. 13-0043

ORDER
AND NOW, this 7th day of March, 2014, upon consideration of Ms. Brown’s Brief and
Statement of Issues in Support of Request for Review (Docket No. 8) and Defendant’s Response
to Ms. Brown’s Request for Review (Docket No. 10), and after review of Chief United States
Magistrate Judge Carol Sandra Moore Wells’s Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 11), to
which no objections have been filed, 1 it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED. 2
2. Ms. Brown’s Request for Review is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and the
decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration is REVERSED
to the extent that the matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner under sentence

1

The Local Rules provide that “[a]ny party may object to a magistrate judge’s order
determining a motion or matter . . . within fourteen (14) days after issuance of the magistrate
judge’s order . . . .” E.D. Pa. Local R. Civ. P. 72.1(IV)(a). Judge Wells issued her Report and
Recommendation on February 18, 2014; objections were therefore due March 4, 2014.
2

The Report and Recommendation states that “the four hours Dr. Shaw permitted certainly
exceed the six hour requirement for light work.” R&R 10. These figures should have been
transposed—i.e., “the six-hour requirement for light work exceeds the four hours Dr. Shaw
permitted.” The Court also notes that the ALJ’s misreading of four hours as two hours
(presumably based on the ALJ’s reading the text next to the checked box but not the note next to
that text, see R. 336) would only further support Ms. Brown’s position; the point stands that Dr.
Shaw’s assessment and Ms. Brown’s residual functional capacity require reevaluation.

four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with Judge Wells’s
Report and Recommendation. The Comissioner shall:
a. Reconsider Dr. Shaw’s May 26, 2010 assessment;
b. reconsider Ms. Brown’s residual functional capacity in light of all her physical
limitations;
c. consider Ms. Brown’s potential “borderline” age situation; and
d. if necessary, pose hypothetical questions to the vocational expert that take into
account all of Ms. Brown’s credible limitations.
3. JUDGMENT IS ENTERED in favor of Ms. Brown, thereby reversing the decision of
the Commissioner for the purpose of this remand only.
4. The Clerk of Court shall mark this case CLOSED for all purposes, including
statistics.

BY THE COURT:
S/Gene E.K. Pratter
GENE E.K. PRATTER
United States District Judge