BELL v. COLVIN

Filing 22

ORDER THAT THE REPORT & RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED & ADOPTED; PLFF'S REQUEST FOR REVIEW IS GRANTED; PLFF'S OBJECTIONS TO THE REPORT & RECOMMENDATION (DOC. NO. 19) ARE OVERRULED; THIS CASE IS REMANDED TO THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH JUDGE RICE'S REPORT & RECOMMENDATION; & THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL MARK THIS CASE CLOSED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE MITCHELL S. GOLDBERG ON 4/13/17. 4/13/17 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(kw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CONSTANCE BELL,
Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Acting Commissioner of the Social
Security Administration,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION

No. 15-6696

ORDER
AND NOW, this 13th day of April, 2017, upon careful and independent consideration of
Plaintiff’s Request for Review and the response thereto, and after review of the Report and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Timothy R. Rice, as well as Plaintiff’s
Objections to the Report and Recommendation, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1.

The Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 18) is APPROVED and ADOPTED;

2.

Plaintiff’s Request for Review is GRANTED;

3.

Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 19) are
OVERRULED;1

4.

This case is REMANDED to the Social Security Administration for further
proceedings consistent with Judge Rice’s Report and Recommendation; and

5.

1

The Clerk of Court shall mark this case CLOSED.

Plaintiff raises a “limited objection” related solely to the proposed order remanding this case to the Social Security
Administration. Plaintiff requests that my order remanding this case “include instructions to the Commissioner to
calculate and pay benefits for the period September 2012 through December 2013.” (Pl.’s Objections at 3.) On this
limited point, I agree with the Government that, although Judge Rice concluded that the ALJ’s determination of
Plaintiff’s disability onset date was not supported by substantial evidence, Judge Rice did not explicitly find that
Plaintiff was entitled to benefits based upon an alternative disability onset date (i.e., August 29, 2012). (Def.’s Resp.
at 2.) Therefore, Plaintiff’s objections will be overruled, and the case will be remanded for further proceedings in
accordance with the Report and Recommendation.

BY THE COURT:
/s/ Mitchell S. Goldberg
____________________________
MITCHELL S. GOLDBERG, J.

2