Harris v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 22

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 17 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 Richard M. Gergel on 06/28/2016. (bshr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Travis Antonio Harris,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner
of Social Security Administration,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 1:15-371O-RMG

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court for judicial review of the final decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiffs application for Disability Insurance Benefits
("DIB"). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was
referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for pretrial handling. The Magistrate Judge issued
a Report and Recommendation on June 9, 2016, recommending that the decision of the
Commissioner be reversed and remanded because the ALl's failure to (1) consider the combined
effects of Plaintiffs severe and non severe impairments in assessing Plaintiffs RFC; (2) weigh
the opinions of treating physicians Drs. Byrd, McLeod and Ward in accord with the standards of
the Treating Physician Rule; and (3) perform a proper credibility analysis by failing to consider
the entire record. (Dkt. No. 17). The Commissioner has filed a response to the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation indicating that she will file no objections. (Dkt. No. 20).
The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and the record evidence and
finds that the Magistrate Judge has ably addressed the factual and legal issues in this matter.

-1­

Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 17) as the order of
this Court, REVERSES the decision ofthe Commissioner pursuant to Sentence Four of 42
U.S.C. § 405(g), and REMANDS the matter to the Commissioner for further proceedings
consistent with this order.!
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge

Charleston, South Carolina
June~, 2016

I On remand, the Plaintiff is pennitted to supplement the record with additional
infonnation to establish the basis of the V A's disability rating. See, Dkt. No. 17 at 39 n. 8. If
such additional evidence is provided, the Commissioner is directed to reconsider her V A
disability finding.

-2­