Opinion
Case No: 2:13-cv-179-FtM-29CM
09-02-2014
DANIEL BROOKS, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on consideration of Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando's Report and Recommendation (Doc. #30), filed on July 28, 2014, recommending that the Decision of the Commissioner be reversed and remanded with instructions to the Commissioner. No objections have been filed, and the time to do so has expired.
The Court reviews the Commissioner's decision to determine if it is supported by substantial evidence and based upon proper legal standards. Crawford v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1158 (11th Cir. 2004)(citing Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1439 (11th Cir. 1997)). Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance, and is such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005)(citing Crawford, 363 F.3d at 1158-59). Even if the evidence preponderates against the Commissioner's findings, the Court must affirm if the decision reached is supported by substantial evidence. Crawford, 363 F.3d at 1158-59 (citing Martin v. Sullivan, 894 F.2d 1520, 1529 (11th Cir. 1990)). The Court does not decide facts anew, make credibility judgments, reweigh the evidence, or substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner. Moore, 405 F.3d at 1211 (citing Bloodsworth v. Heckler, 703 F.2d 1233, 1239 (11th Cir. 1983)); Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206, 1210 (11th Cir. 2005)(citing Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1240 n.8 (11th Cir. 2004)). The Court reviews the Commissioner's conclusions of law under a de novo standard of review. Ingram v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 496 F.3d 1253, 1260 (11th Cir. 2007)(citing Martin, 894 F.2d at 1529).
After an independent review, the Court agrees with the findings and recommendations in the Report and Recommendation.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. #30) is accepted and adopted by the Court.
2. The Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is reversed and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner of Social Security pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) so that the Commissioner can consider: (1) whether plaintiff meets the requirements of disability under 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, Listings 12.02, 12.04, and 12.08; (2) the severity of plaintiff's mental impairments and plaintiff's residual functional capacity inclusive of the effects of the low GAF scores; and (3) if necessary, whether there are other jobs in the national economy that can be performed given plaintiff's impairments by calling a vocational expert to testify.
3. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close the file.
DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this 2nd day of September, 2014.
/s/_________
JOHN E. STEELE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies:
Hon. Carol Mirando
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Counsel of Record