RICHLINE v. ASTRUE

Filing 22

ORDER THAT THE R&R IS ADOPTED EXCEPT FOR THE DISCUSSION OF THE PLAINTIFFS ARGUMENT THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ("ALJ") DID NOT ADDRESS THE TESTIMONY OF THE PLAINTIFF AND HIS MOTHER WITH RESPECT TO THE TIME NEEDED AT WORK TAKE CARE OF HIS DIABETES. THE COURT WILL REMAND THE CASE TO THE COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS ORDER, ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN ON 9/20/13. 9/20/13 ENTERED AND COPIES EMAILED.(rf, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
WILLIAM RICHLINE
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE

:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 12-4531

ORDER
AND NOW, this 20th day of September, 2013, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that after careful and independent review of the Report
and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge Thomas J. Rueter,
and the plaintiff’s objections to the R&R, and after review of
the original briefs filed by the parties, and a telephonic oral
argument held on the record on September 19, 2013, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that the R&R is adopted except for the discussion of the
plaintiff’s argument that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”)
did not address the testimony of the plaintiff and his mother
with respect to the time needed at work take care of his
diabetes.

The Court will remand the case to the Commissioner of

Social Security for further proceedings consistent with this
order.
The Court’s concern that it articulated in the
telephonic oral argument is that the ALJ did not find the
testimony of the plaintiff credible on this issue but did not
explain why.

Apparently, the ALJ concluded that it was

unreasonable to think that the plaintiff would have to spend as
much time during the work day dealing with his diabetic needs.
The Court cannot tell why the ALJ concluded that it was not
reasonable.

As the Court understands it, this specific issue is

not dealt with in any doctors’ reports.

No one has opined that

the nature of the plaintiff’s diabetic condition would not
necessitate the activities described by the plaintiff in caring
for his needs.
Because the vocational expert said that if,
indeed, this testimony had been found credible, there were no
jobs that the plaintiff could do, the Court will remand this
matter for further consideration of this issue.

BY THE COURT:
/s/ Mary A. McLaughlin
MARY A. McLAUGHLIN, J.

2