Boggs v. Colvin
Filing
30
ORDER: 1. The R&R 25 of M.J. Mehalchick is ADOPTED.2. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in favor of Leann Marie Boggs (Boggs) and against the Commissioner of Social Security (Commissioner) as set forth in the following paragraph.3. The Commis sioners decision is VACATED and this matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner with instructions to conduct a new administrative hearing in accordance with this order and the report (Doc. 25) of Magistrate Judge Mehalchick.4. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case. Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 9/25/17. (ma)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
LEANN MARIE BOGGS,
Plaintiff
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,1
Defendant
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-CV-656
(Chief Judge Conner)
ORDER
AND NOW, this 25th day of September, 2017, upon consideration of
the report (Doc. 25) of Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick, recommending the
court grant the appeal (Doc. 1) of Leann Marie Boggs (“Boggs”) from the decision of
the administrative law judge denying Boggs’ application for a period of disability,
disability insurance benefits, and supplemental security income, wherein Judge
Mehalchick opines that the inaudibility of vocational testimony concerning Boggs’
ability to perform work in the national economy—a critical inquiry in the five-step
sequential evaluation process for disability determinations—inhibits our ability to
meaningfully assess whether the administrative law judge’s decision is supported
by substantial evidence, and opines further that the amended transcript filed by the
Commissioner does not adequately clarify the relevant response, (Doc. 25 at 5-9), and
1
Carolyn W. Colvin (“Colvin”) was Acting Commissioner of Social Security
when the instant action was filed against her in her official capacity. On January
23, 2017, Nancy A. Berryhill succeeded Colvin as Acting Commissioner. Pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Nancy A. Berryhill is substituted as the
defendant in this action. See FED. R. CIV. P. 25(d).
the court noting that the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”)
objected to the report, (Doc. 28); see FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2), and Boggs filed a
response (Doc. 29) thereto, and following a de novo review of the contested portion
of the report, see Behar v. Pa. Dep’t of Transp., 791 F. Supp. 2d 383, 389 (M.D. Pa.
2011) (citing Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099, 1106 n.3 (3d Cir. 1989); 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(C)), and applying a clear error standard of review to the uncontested
portions, see Cruz v. Chater, 990 F. Supp. 375, 376-78 (M.D. Pa. 1999), the court in
agreement with Judge Mehalchick that inaudibility of crucial vocational testimony
precludes the court from finding that the decision of the administrative law judge is
“supported by substantial evidence,” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Fargnoli v. Massanari, 247
F.3d 34, 38 (3d Cir. 2001), and finding Judge Mehalchick’s analysis to be thorough,
well-reasoned, and fully supported by the record, and further finding the
Commissioner’s objection to be without merit and squarely and appropriately
addressed by the report, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1.
The report (Doc. 25) of Magistrate Judge Mehalchick is ADOPTED.
2.
The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in favor of Leann Marie
Boggs (“Boggs”) and against the Commissioner of Social Security
(“Commissioner”) as set forth in the following paragraph.
3.
The Commissioner’s decision is VACATED and this matter is
REMANDED to the Commissioner with instructions to conduct a new
administrative hearing in accordance with this order and the report
(Doc. 25) of Magistrate Judge Mehalchick.
4.
The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.
/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania
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?