LAFFERTY v. COLVIN

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AS MODIFIED BY THE ACCOMPANYING MEMORANDUM AND ADOPTED; DEFENDANT'S OBJECTION IS OVERRULED; PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR REVIEW IS GRANTED IN PART AND THE MATTER IS REMANDED TO THE COMMISSIONER PURSUANT TO THE FOURTH SENTENCE OF 42 USC:405(G) FOR FURTHER REVIEW IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACCOMPANYING MEMORANDUM OF LAW; AND IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS, PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR RELIEF IS DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE THOMAS N. ONEILL, JR ON 1/12/16. 1/12/16 ENTERED & E-MAILED.(fdc)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA STERLING J. LAFFERTY v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security : : : : : : CIVIL ACTION No. 14-5690 ORDER AND NOW, this 12th day of January, 2016, upon consideration of plaintiff Sterling J. Lafferty’s brief and statement of issues in support of request for review (Dkt. No. 9), defendant’s response (Dkt. No. 14), plaintiff’s reply (Dkt. No. 16), the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Henry S. Perkin (Dkt. No. 17), defendant’s objection to the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 18), plaintiff’s response to defendant’s objection (Dkt. No. 20) and the administrative record (Dkt. No. 5) and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum it is ORDERED that: 1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED as modified by the accompanying memorandum and ADOPTED; 2. Defendant’s objection is OVERRULED; 3. Plaintiff's request for review is GRANTED IN PART and the matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further review in accordance with the accompanying memorandum of law; and 4. In all other respects, Plaintiff’s request for relief is DENIED. s/Thomas N. O’Neill, Jr. THOMAS N. O’NEILL, JR., 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?