Henry v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Filing 33

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: 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. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 4/27/2015. (gnan )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Rose Mary Henry,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Carolyn W. Colvin, Commissioner of
Social Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 5:14-432-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 ("R & R") on April 16, 2015 recommending that the decision of
the Commissioner be reversed and remanded to the agency. (Dkt. No. 28). The Magistrate
Judge's recommendation is based on the Administrative Law Judge's ("ALJ") assessment ofthe
opinions of Plaintiffs treating physician, Dr. William O'Quinn. The ALJ gave "little weight" to
the treating physician's opinions. The Magistrate Judge found that the ALJ failed to evaluate Dr.
O'Quinn's opinions in accord with the standards set forth in the Treating Physician Rule, 20
C.F.R. §404.l527, and inaccurately and unfairly quoted Dr. O'Quinn's medical record. (Dkt.
No. 28 at 17-19). The Magistrate Judge also concluded that the Commissioner erred in failing to
have a fact finder weigh and reconcile the new and material evidence submitted for the first time

-1­

to the Appeals Council, as required by Meyer v. Astrue, 662 F. 3d 700, 706-07 (4th Cir. 201l).
The Commissioner has filed a reply to the R & R indicating that she does not intend to file any
objections to the recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. (Dkt. No. 31).
The Court has reviewed the R & R and the record evidence and finds that the Magistrate
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.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

Richard Mark Gergel
United States District Judge

Charleston, South Carolina
April2. r ,2015

-2­