From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Katherine H. v. Saul

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE
Feb 21, 2020
1:19-cv-00038-JAW (D. Me. Feb. 21, 2020)

Opinion

1:19-cv-00038-JAW

02-21-2020

KATHERINE R. H., Plaintiff v. ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant


ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

No objection having been filed to the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision filed February 3, 2020 (ECF No. 22), the Court accepts the Recommended Decision.

The Court has reviewed and considered the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision, together with the entire record; the Court has made a de novo determination of all matters adjudicated by the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision; and the Court concurs with the recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge for the reasons set forth in his Recommended Decision, and determines that no further proceeding is necessary.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Recommended Decision (ECF No. 22) of the Magistrate Judge is ACCEPTED and the Court VACATES the Commissioner's administrative decision and REMANDS the case for proceedings consistent with the Recommended Decision.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr.

JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated this 21st day of February, 2020


Summaries of

Katherine H. v. Saul

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE
Feb 21, 2020
1:19-cv-00038-JAW (D. Me. Feb. 21, 2020)
Case details for

Katherine H. v. Saul

Case Details

Full title:KATHERINE R. H., Plaintiff v. ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE

Date published: Feb 21, 2020

Citations

1:19-cv-00038-JAW (D. Me. Feb. 21, 2020)

Citing Cases

Michelle F. v. Saul

While courts overlook an "arguable deficiency in opinion-writing technique" if not outcome-determinative, see…