Cassidy v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 25

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 23 Report and Recommendation, reversing the decision of the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and remanding the matter for further administrative proceedings. Signed by Honorable Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. on 03/18/2014. (bshr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Timothy Cassidy,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
Carolyn W. Colvin, Commissioner of
)
Social Security,
)
)
Defendant.
)
______________________________________ )

C/A No. 1:13-821-JFA-SVH

ORDER

The plaintiff, Timothy Cassidy, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to
obtain judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security
(Commissioner) denying his claim for disability insurance benefits (DIB).
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a Report and
Recommendation wherein she opines that the court cannot conduct a proper review of the
Commissioner’s decision based on the record presented and thus, the Commissioner’s
decision should be reversed and remanded for further administrative action. Specifically, the
Magistrate Judge opines that remand is required so that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
can consider Dr. Lee’s opinion in accordance with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) and SSR 962p. The Magistrate Judge also recommends that on remand the ALJ should specifically
address the alleged side effects of plaintiff’s medications and how they impact his residual

1

The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02. The
Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the
responsibility to make a final determination remains with the court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court
is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objection is made and
the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit
the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

1

functional capacity (RFC). The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards
of law on this matter, and the court incorporates such without a recitation.
The parties were advised of their right to submit objections to the Report and
Recommendation which was filed on March 10, 2014. The Commissioner has responded
indicating that it will not file objections to the Report and Recommendation.

It is the duty of the ALJ reviewing the case, and not the responsibility of the
courts, to make findings of fact and resolve conflicts in the evidence. This court’s
scope of review is limited to the determination of whether the findings of the
Commissioner are supported by substantial evidence taking the record as a whole,
Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir. 1996), and whether the correct law was
applied, Walls v. Barnhart, 296 F.3d 287, 290 (4th Cir. 2002).
After a careful review of the record, including the findings of the ALJ, the
briefs from the plaintiff and the Commissioner, the Magistrate Judge’s Report, the
plaintiff’s objections and the Commissioner’s notice that it will not file objections,
this court finds that the Report is proper and is incorporated herein by reference.
Accordingly, the Commissioner’s decision is reversed and remanded for further
review as set out in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and this
order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

March 18, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge
2