BARRETO v. COLVIN

Filing 17

ORDER THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED. PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR REVIEW IS GRANTED IN PART AND THE MATTER IS REMANDED FOR FURTHER REVIEW CONSISTENT WITH THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. SIGNED BY CHIEF JUDGE PETRESE B. TUCKER ON 3/24/16. 3/25/16 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(mbh, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

ERIKA BARRETO,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social
Security,

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 14-4629

Defendant.
ORDER
AND NOW, this _24th_ day of March, 2016, upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Complaint
(Doc. 3), Defendant’s Answer (Doc. 7), Plaintiff’s Brief and Statement of Issues in Support of
Request for Review (Doc. 11), Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Request for Review (Doc.
12), and the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Marilyn Heffley
(Doc. 15), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DECREED as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED; 1 and

1

As explained in Judge Heffley’s Report and Recommendation, the Administrative Law Judge
(“ALJ”) failed to explain why she classified Plaintiff’s headaches as non-severe in step two of
the analysis despite medical evidence to the contrary. On remand, the ALJ must develop the
record regarding Plaintiff’s headaches and obtain a medical opinion that addresses whether
Plaintiff’s headaches impose functional limitations that rise to the requisite level of severity.
When considering this evidence, the “ALJ may weigh the credibility of the evidence, [and] must
give some indication of the evidence which [s]he rejects and [her[ reason(s) for discounting such
evidence.” Burnett v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 220 F.3d 112, 121 (3d Cir. 2000). As a result,
the newly developed record may affect the ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff’s testimony
regarding her functional limitations was only partially credible.
1

2.

Plaintiff’s Request for Review is GRANTED IN PART, and the matter is
REMANDED for further review consistent with the Report and
Recommendation.

BY THE COURT:
/s/ Petrese B. Tucker
_________________________
Hon. Petrese B. Tucker, C.J.

2