TERRY v. COLVIN

Filing 19

ORDER THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE HENRY S. PERKIN 17 IS HEREBY APPROVED AND ADOPTED, ETC. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 02/03/2017. 02/03/2017 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(nds)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
TRAVIS TERRY,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ACTING
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION
No. 14-6514

O R D E R
AND NOW, this 3rd day of February, 2017, after
reviewing the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Henry S. Perkin (ECF No. 17), it is hereby
ORDERED that:
(1)

The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and

ADOPTED;1

1

The Court agrees with Judge Perkin that the
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) appears to have not considered
relevant and probative evidence in three of the six domains used
to evaluate child disability, including acquiring and using
information, attending and completing tasks, and interacting and
relating to others. Further, it is troubling that the
Commissioner did not respond at all to Plaintiff’s allegations
regarding specific mischaracterizations, omissions, and
selective quotations made by the ALJ to reach her decision that
Plaintiff was not disabled. For example, the Commissioner did
not respond at all to Plaintiff’s allegation that “the ALJ
carelessly concluded that T.K.T. performed in the average range
‘in all areas, except for Body Concepts/Awareness’ on [five
subtests of] the DTKR-II (Developmental Tasks for Kindergarten
Readiness-II) test’ because she failed to turn the page and

(3)

Plaintiff’s request for review is GRANTED;

(4)

This matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner for

further review consistent with this Order; and
(5)

The Clerk of Court shall mark this case as

CLOSED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Eduardo C. Robreno
EDUARDO C. ROBRENO,
J.

discover that there were an additional 13 subtest scores,
including four on which Plaintiff’s score was below average and
8 of which Plaintiff’s score was significantly below average.”
Pl.’s Reply at 3, ECF No. 8. In light of this and numerous other
undefended and significant errors, the Court agrees with Judge
Perkin that the ALJ’s decision was not supported by substantial
evidence.
2