Sutherland v. Colvin

Filing 15

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ; adopting 13 Report and Recommendations.The report and recommendation of Judge Saporito, (Doc. 19), is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY.(2)The decision of the Commissioner is VACATED.(3)The instant action is REMAN DED to the Commissioner to fully develop the record, conduct a new administrative hearing, and appropriately evaluate the evidence pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. §405(g).(4)The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THIS CASESigned by Honorable Malachy E Mannion on 5/11/18. (bs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MICHELLE SUTHERLAND,

:
:

Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-0124
:

v.

JUDGE MANNION
:

NANCY A. BETTYHILL, ACTING
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,

:
:

Defendant
ORDER
Pending before the court is the report of Magistrate Judge Joseph F.
Saporito which recommends that the Commissioner’s decision be vacated
and that the instant action be remanded to the Commissioner to conduct a
new administrative hearing. (Doc. 13). By letter dated March 20, 2018, the
Commissioner has waived the opportunity to object to Judge Saporito’s
report. (Doc. 14). No objections have been filed by the plaintiff. Upon review,
the report will be adopted in its entirety.
When no objection is made to a report and recommendation, the court
should, as a matter of good practice, “satisfy itself that there is no clear error
on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b), advisory committee notes; see also Univac Dental Co. v. Dentsply
Intern., Inc., 702 F.Supp.2d 465, 469 (M.D.Pa. 2010) (citing Henderson v.
Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987) (explaining judges should give

some review to every report and recommendation)). Nevertheless, whether
timely objections are made or not, the district court may accept, not accept,
or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the
magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31.
In her appeal, the plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred when he did not
include a sit-stand option in the RFC. She supports her argument by pointing
to an MRI of her lumbar spine, Dr. Kilkelly’s medical opinion stating she
needed a sit-stand option, and her own testimony.
In carefully considering the plaintiff’s claims, Judge Saporito found that
the ALJ failed to adequately explain Dr. Kilkelly’s opinion, and which portions
of his opinion he rejected. Specifically, Judge Saporito found that the final
decision denying Ms. Sutherland’s claims are not supported by substantial
evidence. Accordingly, Judge Saporito recommends that the decision of the
ALJ be vacated and the matter be remanded to fully develop the record,
conduct a new administrative hearing, and appropriately evaluate the
evidence pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. §405(g).
The court has reviewed the entire report of Judge Saporito and finds no
clear error of record. The court further agrees with the sound reasoning which
led Judge Saporito to his recommendation. As such, the court adopts the
reasoning of Judge Saporito as the opinion of the court.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

2

(1)

The report and recommendation of Judge Saporito, (Doc.
19), is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY.

(2)

The decision of the Commissioner is VACATED.

(3)

The instant action is REMANDED to the Commissioner to
fully develop the record, conduct a new administrative
hearing, and appropriately evaluate the evidence pursuant
to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. §405(g).

(4)

The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE.

s/ Malachy E. Mannion
MALACHY E. MANNION
United States District Judge
Date: May 11, 2018
O:\Mannion\shared\ORDERS - DJ\CIVIL ORDERS\2017 ORDERS\17-124-01.wpd

3