LUTEK v. COLVIN
Filing
19
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; THIS MATTER IS REMANDED TO THE COMMISSIONER, PURSUANT TO SENTENCE FOUR OF 42 U.S.C. § 405(G), FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF JUDGE RUETER; AND JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF, REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS REMAND ONLY. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JEFFREY L. SCHMEHL ON 11/28/17. 11/28/17 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED. (mas, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ROBERT JOSEPH LUTEK, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 16-6434
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of
Social Security,
Defendant.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 28th
day of November, 2017, upon consideration of Plaintiff’s
Brief and Statement of Issues in Support of Request for Review and Defendant’s Response
thereto and Plaintiff’s Reply, as well as the record therein, and after review of the Report and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Thomas J. Rueter, and with no objections
being filed thereto, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED;
2. Plaintiff’s Request for Review of the decision of the Commissioner of the
Social Security Administration is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part;
3. This matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner, pursuant to sentence four
of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for further proceedings consistent with the Report and
Recommendation of Judge Rueter; and
4. Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff, reversing the decision of the
Commissioner for the purpose of this remand only.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Jeffrey L. Schmehl
Jeffrey L. Schmehl, J.
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?