Gonzalez v. Colvin et al
Filing
18
ORDER - IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. Magistrate Judge Saporitos Report and Recommendation 15 , is ADOPTED; 2. The Commissioners final decision denying Plaintiffs application for disability insurance benefits is VACATED, and the above-captioned action is R EMANDED for further proceedings as follows: a. Plaintiffs request for an award of benefits is DENIED; b. Plaintiffs request for a new administrative hearing is GRANTED to clarify her impairments and limitations when presenting the hypothetical questi ons and for further review of the medical records; 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter final judgment in Plaintiffs favor, and against the Commissioner; and 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the above-captioned case. Signed by Honorable Yvette Kane on 8/3/17. (rw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
LUCELENIA GONZALEZ,
Plaintiff
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Acting Commissioner of
Social Security,1
Defendant
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
No. 3:16-cv-00925
(Judge Kane)
(Magistrate Judge Saporito)
ORDER
THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:
On May 18, 2016, Plaintiff Lucelenia Gonzalez filed a complaint against Defendant
Carolyn W. Colvin, then-Commissioner of Social Security Administration, appealing the
Commissioner’s final decision and the denial of her application for disability insurance benefits
under Sections 216(i) and 223(d) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(i), 423(d). (Doc.
Nos. 1; 11-2 at 2, 34.) Specifically, Plaintiff challenged the Administrative Law Judge Michelle
Wolfe’s (“ALJ”) residual functional capacity (“RFC”) assessment and that contended that the
ALJ erred by not imposing limits on the “operation of foot and leg controls involving Plaintiff’s
right knee and leg in formulating the RFC and in questioning the vocational expert” (“VE”).
(Doc. Nos. 11-2 at 34; 12 at 2-3.)
Before the Court is the May 22, 2017 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge
Saporito, recommending that the Commissioner’s final decision be vacated and the abovecaptioned action be remanded to clarify Plaintiff’s “impairments and limitations.” (Doc. No.
15.) Magistrate Judge Saporito reasons that the ALJ “failed to present a hypothetical question to
1
The Court notes that since the institution of this action, Carolyn W. Colvin has been
succeeded as Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration by Nancy A. Berryhill.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), a public officer’s successor is automatically
substituted as a party in an action brought against the public officer in an official capacity.
1
the VE that properly identified all of [Plaintiff] Gonzalez’s impairments and limitations.” (Id. at
17.) Specifically, Magistrate Judge Saporito finds in the Report and Recommendation that the
“ALJ did not include any limitations with regard to pushing and pulling using the lower
extremities when she assessed [Plaintiff] Gonzalez’s RFC, nor did she impose any limitations
when presenting the hypothetical to the VE.” (Id. at 19.)
Defendant Acting Commissioner of Social Security Nancy A. Berryhill has objected to
the Report and Recommendation on the basis that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s
assessment of Plaintiff’s RFC. (Doc. No. 16 at 2.) The Court finds that Magistrate Judge
Saporito correctly and comprehensively addressed the substance of Defendant’s objection in the
Report and Recommendation. (Doc. No. 15.) Thus, the Court will not write separately to
address Defendant’s objection.
ACCORDINGLY, upon independent review of the record and applicable law, on this
3rd day of August 2017, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. Magistrate Judge Saporito’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 15), is
ADOPTED;
2. The Commissioner’s final decision denying Plaintiff’s application for disability
insurance benefits is VACATED, and the above-captioned action is REMANDED
for further proceedings as follows:
a. Plaintiff’s request for an award of benefits is DENIED;
b. Plaintiff’s request for a new administrative hearing is GRANTED to clarify
her “impairments and limitations when presenting the hypothetical questions
and for further review of the medical records;”
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter final judgment in Plaintiff’s favor, and against
the Commissioner; and
2
4. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the above-captioned case.
s/ Yvette Kane
Yvette Kane, District Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania
3
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?