From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pittman v. Astrue

United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division
Oct 10, 2008
No. 5:08-CV-83-FL (E.D.N.C. Oct. 10, 2008)

Summary

finding that ALJ's failure to set forth specific facts at step two regarding the severity of claimant's knee impairment was not reversible error because the ALJ considered all of claimant's impairments in formulating the claimant's RFC

Summary of this case from Norfleet v. Colvin

Opinion

No. 5:08-CV-83-FL.

October 10, 2008


ORDER


This matter is before the court on the Memorandum and Recommendation ("M R") of United States Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr., regarding the parties' cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings. No objections to the M R have been filed, and the time within which to make any objection has expired. This matter is ripe for ruling.

The court hereby ADOPTS the recommendation of Magistrate Judge Jones as its own, and, for the reasons stated therein, plaintiff's motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, defendant's motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and this matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with the M R. The clerk of court is directed to close the case.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Pittman v. Astrue

United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division
Oct 10, 2008
No. 5:08-CV-83-FL (E.D.N.C. Oct. 10, 2008)

finding that ALJ's failure to set forth specific facts at step two regarding the severity of claimant's knee impairment was not reversible error because the ALJ considered all of claimant's impairments in formulating the claimant's RFC

Summary of this case from Norfleet v. Colvin

finding that ALJ's failure to set forth specific facts at step two regarding severity of claimant's knee impairment was not reversible error because ALJ considered all of claimant's impairments in formulating RFC

Summary of this case from Mitchell v. Colvin

finding that ALJ's failure to set forth specific facts at step two regarding severity of claimant's knee impairment was not reversible error because ALJ considered all of claimant's impairments in formulating RFC

Summary of this case from Anderson v. Colvin

finding that ALJ's failure to set forth specific facts at step two regarding severity of claimant's knee impairment was not reversible error because ALJ considered all of claimant's impairments in formulating RFC

Summary of this case from Hill v. Colvin

rejecting the Commissioner's argument that Nelson controls and finding remand necessary because of "the ALJ's failure to perform the step-one analysis"

Summary of this case from Prophet v. Saul
Case details for

Pittman v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:ERVIN R. PITTMAN, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division

Date published: Oct 10, 2008

Citations

No. 5:08-CV-83-FL (E.D.N.C. Oct. 10, 2008)

Citing Cases

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

Thus, courts have found that an ALJ's failure to find a particular impairment severe at Step 2 does not…

Teel v. Kijakazi

“As long as a claimant has any severe impairment or combination of impairments, the ALJ must proceed beyond…