Barnhart v. Colvin

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting and incorporating the 13 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge; Plaintiff's 10 request for a remand is granted; Defendant's 11 request to affirm the decision of the Commissi oner is denied; the decision of the Commissioner is reversed; this action is remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for further proceedings which shall include a consultative examination of claimant, including IQ testing, an explanation of the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.927(d)(2)-(6) in determining the weight given to the opinions of Dr. Young, Mr. Atkinson, Dr. Allen and Ms. Dudley, and, if the ALJ does not adopt ALJ Taylor's fi nding that the claimant meets Listing 12.05C, a more detailed explanation of the reasons for the non-adoption, and as more fully set forth in the magistrate judge's Proposed Findings and Recommendation. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 8/23/2017. (cc: counsel of record; United States Magistrate Judge) (taq)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT CHARLESTON
GEORGE A. BARNHART,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 16-4059

NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Acting Commissioner of the Social
Security Administration,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The court having received the Proposed Findings and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L.
Tinsley, entered on August 4, 2017; and the magistrate judge
having recommended that the court reverse the final decision of
the Commissioner, grant plaintiff’s motion in Support of
Judgment on the Pleadings to the extent it requests remand, deny
the Commissioner’s motion in Support of the Defendant’s
Decision, reverse the final decision of the Commissioner, remand
this case for further proceedings, and dismiss this matter from
the court’s docket; and no objection having been filed to the
Proposed Findings and Recommendation, it is ORDERED that:

1. The findings made in the Proposed Findings and
Recommendation of the magistrate judge be, and they hereby are,
adopted by the court and incorporated herein;
2. Plaintiff’s request for a remand be, and it hereby
is, granted;
3. Defendant’s request to affirm the decision of the
Commissioner be, and it hereby is, denied;
4. The decision of the Commissioner be, and it hereby
is, reversed;
5. This action be, and it hereby is, remanded pursuant
to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for further proceedings
which shall include a consultative examination of claimant,
including IQ testing, an explanation of the factors listed in 20
C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.927(d)(2)-(6) in determining the
weight given to the opinions of Dr. Young, Mr. Atkinson, Dr.
Allen and Ms. Dudley, and, if the ALJ does not adopt ALJ
Taylor’s finding that the claimant meets Listing 12.05C, a more
detailed explanation of the reasons for the non-adoption, and as
more fully set forth in the magistrate judge’s Proposed Findings
and Recommendation.

Byrd United States Courthouse in Charleston, before
the undersigned, unless canceled. Lead counsel
directed to appear.
02/29/2016

Entry of scheduling order.

The Clerk Last day to serve F.R. Civ. P 26(a)(1) disclosures.
is directed to forward copies of this
03/08/2016
written opinion and order to all counsel of record and the
The Clerk is requested to transmit this Order and
UnitedNotice to all counsel of record and to any unrepresented
States Magistrate Judge.
parties.
DATED: August 23,5, 2016
DATED: January 2017
John T. Copenhaver, Jr.
United States District Judge