Suber v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 33

ORDER adopting 28 Report and Recommendation. The Court reverses the decision of the 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. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 07/03/2019.(cpeg, )

pretrial handling. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation ("R & R") on

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Christopher Andrew Suber,
Plaintiff,

)
)
)

VS.

)

Civil Action No. 1: 18-424-RMG

)
Nancy A. Berrryhill, Acting Commissioner )
of Social Security,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)

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" ) and Supplemental Security Income ("SSI"). 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

June 10, 2019, recommending that the decision of the Commissioner be reversed and remanded
to the agency because of the Administrative Law Judge's failure, as required by controlling
regulations, to consider the full range of evidence in the record regarding Plaintiffs chronic
mental illness and inability to function independently and interact with others when weighing
whether Plaintiff met the standards for one of the mental disorder Listings. (Dtk. No. 28 at 3447). The Commissioner has advised the Court that she does not intend to file objections to the R

& R. (Dkt. No. 29).
The Court has reviewed the R & R and the record evidence and finds that the Magistrate

-1-

Judge has ably addressed the factual and legal issues in this matter. Therefore, the Court
ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation as the order of this Court, REVERSES the decision
of the 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.

The Court

further orders and directs that the agency on remand address the apparent discrepancy between
the testimony of the Vocational Expert, who identified only jobs requiring Level Two reasoning,
and the Administrative Law Judge's limitation of Plaintiff to "simple, routine tasks .. involving
simple work-related decisions ... " Tr. 18, 65-66. As the Magistrate Judge stated at Footnote 13
and this Court ruled in Abstance v. Berry hill, 2019 WL 669799 (D.S.C. 2019), the failure of the
Vocational Expert to resolve this apparent discrepancy would result in the Commissioner not
meeting her burden under Step Five of the Sequential Process, mandating an award of benefits to
the Plaintiff.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge

Charleston, South Carolina
July l_, 2019

-2-