From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jackson v. Astrue

United States District Court, D. South Carolina
Feb 5, 2010
C/A No. 8:08-2855-JFA-BHH (D.S.C. Feb. 5, 2010)

Summary

finding the ALJ improperly interpreted evidence when the ALJ, on his own, not by weighing conflicting medical opinions, found the plaintiff's daily activities did not comport with her IQ scores

Summary of this case from Gilliard v. Berryhill

Opinion

C/A No. 8:08-2855-JFA-BHH.

February 5, 2010


ORDER


This is an action brought by the plaintiff, Mollie J. Jackson, pursuant to sections 205(g) and 1631(c)(3) of the Social Security Act, as amended, to obtain judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("Commissioner") denying her claims for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act.

The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action has prepared a Report and Recommendation wherein she suggests that the Commissioner's decision to deny benefits should be reversed under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and remanded to the Commissioner further proceedings. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge opines that the ALJ did not discuss the elements of the listing for mental retardation or include any analysis of the record in light of them, and as such, the Commissioner's decision is not supported by substantial evidence.

The Magistrate Judge's review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objection is made and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The parties were advised of their right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation. The plaintiff did not file objections. However, the Commissioner filed a notice stating that he would not file objections to the Report. Thus, it appears the matter is ripe for review by this court.

After a careful review of the record, including the findings of the ALJ, the briefs from the plaintiff and the Commissioner, and the Magistrate Judge's Report, the court finds the Report provides an accurate summary of the facts in the instant case and that the conclusions are proper. The Magistrate Judge's findings are hereby specifically incorporated herein by reference.

Accordingly, this action is reversed pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and is remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings as stated herein and in the Magistrate Judge's Report.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Jackson v. Astrue

United States District Court, D. South Carolina
Feb 5, 2010
C/A No. 8:08-2855-JFA-BHH (D.S.C. Feb. 5, 2010)

finding the ALJ improperly interpreted evidence when the ALJ, on his own, not by weighing conflicting medical opinions, found the plaintiff's daily activities did not comport with her IQ scores

Summary of this case from Gilliard v. Berryhill

finding the ALJ improperly interpreted evidence when the ALJ, on his own, not by weighing conflicting medical opinions, found the plaintiff's daily activities did not comport with her IQ scores

Summary of this case from Bruce v. Colvin

finding the ALJ improperly interpreted evidence when the ALJ, on his own, not by weighing conflicting medical opinions, found the plaintiff's daily activities did not comport with her IQ scores

Summary of this case from Richardson v. Colvin

reversing Commissioner's decision and remanding where ALJ failed to discuss elements of Listing 12.05

Summary of this case from Hardway v. Colvin

noting that claimant with third grade reading level was "functionally illiterate"

Summary of this case from Horne v. Berryhill

noting that ALJ's are laymen with respect to interpreting medical records and must rely on the opinions of doctors

Summary of this case from Coffey-Watson v. Astrue

remanding because ALJ improperly interpreted evidence when he found plaintiff's daily activities did not comport with her IQ scores

Summary of this case from Dozier v. Astrue
Case details for

Jackson v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:Mollie J. Jackson, Plaintiff, v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social…

Court:United States District Court, D. South Carolina

Date published: Feb 5, 2010

Citations

C/A No. 8:08-2855-JFA-BHH (D.S.C. Feb. 5, 2010)

Citing Cases

Yulfo-Reyes v. Berryhill

See Gross, 473 F. Supp. 2d at 389 ("[A] third-grade reading level is so low that it calls into question…

Woodbury v. Colvin

Instead, an ALJ "need only ‘minimally articulate’ his reasoning so as to ‘make a bridge’ between the evidence…