From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dickerson v. Colvin

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Aug 14, 2013
Civil No. 5:12-cv-0033 DCN (D.S.C. Aug. 14, 2013)

Summary

holding that a medical opinion dated more than a year after the ALJ's decision was new and material evidence that warranted remand

Summary of this case from Amick v. Saul

Opinion

Civil No. 5:12-cv-0033 DCN

08-14-2013

Linda L. Dickerson, Plaintiff, v. Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.


ORDER

This Social Security case is before the Court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation that plaintiff's Motion to Consider Additional Evidence be denied and no sentence six remand be ordered because plaintiff has not established the requisite "good cause" for not having submitted the additional evidence to the ALJ or to the Appeals Council. In addition, the magistrate judge recommends that the Commissioner's decision be reversed and remanded under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. §405(g) for further administrative action.

This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the magistrate judge's report to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, absent prompt objection by a dissatisfied party, it appears that Congress did not intend for the district court to review the factual and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge. Thomas v Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Additionally, any party who fails to file timely, written objections to the magistrate judge's report pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the right to raise those objections at the appellate court level. United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1208 (1984 ). On August 2, 2013, the defendant filed a reply stating that she will not file objections to the Report and Recommendation. Nothing further has been filed by either party.

In Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985), the court held "that a pro se litigant must receive fair notification of the consequences of failure to object to a magistrate judge's report before such a procedural default will result in waiver of the right to appeal. The notice must be 'sufficiently understandable to one in appellant's circumstances fairly to appraise him of what is required.'" Id. at 846. Plaintiff was advised in a clear manner that his objections had to be filed within ten (10) days, and he received notice of the consequences at the appellate level of his failure to object to the magistrate judge's report. --------

A de novo review of the record indicates that the magistrate judge's report accurately summarizes this case and the applicable law. Accordingly, the magistrate judge's report and recommendation is incorporated into this Order. For the reasons articulated by the magistrate judge, plaintiff's Motion to Consider Additional Evidence is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner is hereby REVERSED AND REMANDED under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. §405(g) for further administrative action.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/_________

David C. Norton

United States District Judge August 14, 2013
Charleston, South Carolina

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

The parties are hereby notified that any right to appeal this Order is governed by Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.


Summaries of

Dickerson v. Colvin

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Aug 14, 2013
Civil No. 5:12-cv-0033 DCN (D.S.C. Aug. 14, 2013)

holding that a medical opinion dated more than a year after the ALJ's decision was new and material evidence that warranted remand

Summary of this case from Amick v. Saul

holding that a medical opinion dated more than a year after the ALJ's decision was new and material evidence that warranted remand

Summary of this case from Wright v. Berryhill

holding that a medical opinion dated more than a year after the ALJ's decision was new and material evidence that warranted remand

Summary of this case from Grant v. Berryhill

holding that a medical opinion dated more than a year after the ALJ's decision was new and material evidence that warranted remand

Summary of this case from Bordelon v. Berryhill

holding that a medical opinion dated more than a year after the ALJ's decision was new and material evidence that warranted remand

Summary of this case from Sederbaum v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin.

holding that a medical opinion dated more than a year after the ALJ's decision was new and material evidence that warranted remand

Summary of this case from McGarity v. Colvin

holding that a medical opinion dated more than a year after the ALJ's decision was new and material evidence that warranted remand

Summary of this case from Wilson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin.
Case details for

Dickerson v. Colvin

Case Details

Full title:Linda L. Dickerson, Plaintiff, v. Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Date published: Aug 14, 2013

Citations

Civil No. 5:12-cv-0033 DCN (D.S.C. Aug. 14, 2013)

Citing Cases

Wright v. Berryhill

699 F.3d 337, 341-42 (4th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). See Wise v. Colvin, C/A No. 6:13-2712-RMG, 2014 WL…

Wilson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin.

While Bird specifically addressed evidence created after a claimant's date last insured, this court has…