McClung v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
ORDER RULING ON 16 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 consistent with this order. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 11/29/2017. (egra, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Michael Stephen McClung,
Civil Action No. 9: 16-3658-RMG
Nancy A. Berrryhill, Acting Commissioner )
of Social Security,
This matter comes before the Court for judicial review of the final decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiffs application for 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 pretrial handling. The Magistrate
Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (R & R) on November 16, 2017, recommending that
the decision of the Commissioner be reversed and remanded to the agency because of a failure of
the Administrative Law Judge to consider the opinions of a treating specialist physician, Dr.
McBurney, in accord with the standards of the Treating Physician Rule. (Dkt. No. 16). The
Commissioner has advised the Court that she does not intend to file objections to the R & R.
(Dkt. No. 18).
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.
United States District Judge
Charleston, South Carolina
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?