From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rose v. Berryhill

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT CHARLESTON
Dec 19, 2017
Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-12369 (S.D.W. Va. Dec. 19, 2017)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-12369

12-19-2017

BRANDI CHARLES ROSE, Plaintiff, v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant.


MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This action was previously referred to Cheryl A. Eifert, United States Magistrate Judge, who has submitted her Proposed Findings and Recommendation pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

The court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommendation entered by the magistrate judge on September 18, 2017. The magistrate judge recommends that the court "grant Plaintiff's request for judgment on the pleadings, to the extent that it requests remand of the Commissioner's decision; deny Defendant's request to affirm the decision of the Commissioner; reverse the final decision of the Commissioner; remand this matter pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings consistent with [the Proposed Findings and Recommendation]; and dismiss this action from the docket of the [court]." (ECF #19 at 27 (emphases and citations omitted).) The Commissioner has not objected to the Proposed Findings and Recommendation.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. The Proposed Findings and Recommendations be, and hereby is, adopted by the court;

2. The plaintiff's request for judgment on the pleadings be, and hereby is, granted, to the extent that it requests remand of the Commissioner's decision;

3. The Commissioner's request to affirm the decision of the Commissioner be, and hereby is, denied;

4. The Commissioner's final decision be, and hereby is, reversed;

5. This action be, and hereby is, remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings consistent with the Proposed Findings and Recommendation; and

6. This action be, and hereby is, dismissed from the docket.

The Clerk is directed to forward copies of this written opinion and order to all counsel of record and the United States Magistrate Judge.

ENTER: December 19, 2017

/s/_________

John T. Copenhaver, Jr.

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Rose v. Berryhill

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT CHARLESTON
Dec 19, 2017
Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-12369 (S.D.W. Va. Dec. 19, 2017)
Case details for

Rose v. Berryhill

Case Details

Full title:BRANDI CHARLES ROSE, Plaintiff, v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT CHARLESTON

Date published: Dec 19, 2017

Citations

Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-12369 (S.D.W. Va. Dec. 19, 2017)

Citing Cases

Wheeler v. Berryhill

As such, the ALJ erred by evaluating Plaintiff's pseudoseizures as a strictly physical impairment, rather…

Ruehl v. Kijakazi

In support, Plaintiff relies on Rose v. Berryhill, wherein the court found the ALJ's failure to evaluate the…