NILAN v. COLVIN
Filing
22
CORRECTED ORDER THAT THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO REMOVE THIS ACTION FROM CIVIL SUSPENSE; THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; AND THE DECISION OF THE ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY DENYING JOSEPH F. NILAN, JR. IS VACATED AND THE CASE IS REMANDED TO THE COMMISSIONER FOR FUTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE CYNTHIA M. RUFE ON 11/17/15. 11/18/15 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(ti, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
___________________________________
_
JOSEPH F. NILAN, JR.
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-5524
:
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ACTING
:
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
:
Defendant.
:
CORRECTED ORDER
AND NOW, this 17th day of November 2015, nunc pro tunc to the original order date of
April 9, 2015, upon consideration of the Plaintiff’s Request for Review, Defendant’s response
thereto, and upon review of the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge David R.
Strawbridge, to which no objections have been filed, and after a careful, independent review of the
administrative record, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to remove this action from civil suspense;
2. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED AND ADOPTED1; and
3. The decision of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security denying Joseph F. Nilan, Jr.
social security disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income is VACATED and the
case is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with the Report and
Recommendation.
It is so ORDERED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/Cynthia M. Rufe
_____________________
CYNTHIA M. RUFE, J.
1
The Report and Recommendation comprehensively addressed the issues in this case, and the Court adopts it in
full. In particular, the Court agrees that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) improperly discounted the opinion of
Plaintiff’s treating neurologist, Dr. Gupta, based upon a misreading of the findings of physical examinations, and
substituted the ALJ’s lay understanding of the meaning of diagnostic tests for the opinion of the treating physician. The
Court also agrees that on remand, the ALJ should consider whether to send Plaintiff to a consultative examiner or seek the
testimony of a medical expert at the hearing.
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?