ABREU v. COLVIN

Filing 21

ORDER THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS ADOPTED. THIS CASE IS REMANDED TO THE ACTING COMMISSIONER, PURSUANT TO SENTENCE FOUR OF 42 U.S.C. § 405(G), SO THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE CAN PROPERLY CONSIDER THE DEGREE OF ABSENTEEISM PLAINTI FFS HISTORY OF RECURRING KIDNEY STONES WOULD CAUSE. IF NECESSARY, THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE SHOULD OBTAIN TESTIMONY FROM A VOCATIONAL EXPERT REGARDING WHETHER PLAINTIFFS DOCUMENTED TREATMENT RECORD WOULD CAUSE INTOLERABLE, AND WORK-PRECLUSIVE, ABSENTEEISM. THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL CLOSE THIS CASE. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR. ON 12/6/16. 12/7/16 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(mas, )

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA __________________________________________ YESENIA LEE ABREU, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : : CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner : of Social Security, : : Defendant. : __________________________________________ No. 2:16-cv-00074 ORDER And now, this 6th day of December, 2016, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Carol Sandra Moore Wells, ECF No. 19, and the lack of any timely objection, 1 IT IS ORDERED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation is adopted. 2. This case is REMANDED to the Acting Commissioner, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), so that the administrative law judge can properly consider the degree of absenteeism Plaintiff’s history of recurring kidney stones would cause. If necessary, the administrative law judge should obtain testimony from a vocational expert regarding whether Plaintiff’s documented treatment record would cause intolerable, and work-preclusive, absenteeism. 3. The Clerk of Court shall close this case. BY THE COURT: /s/ Joseph F. Leeson, Jr.____________ JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR. United States District Judge 1 See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 1

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?