Summary
finding the ALJ did not err in failing to obtain updated medical opinion on issue of medical equivalence even when issue of plaintiff's visual impairment did not arise until after state agency medical consultant had reviewed plaintiff's case and there was no physician or medical expert opinion in the record relating to such issue
Summary of this case from Ojeda v. SaulOpinion
Civil Action No. 6:07-CV-053-C ECF.
August 31, 2009
ORDER
THIS MATTER comes before the court on the Report and Recommendation filed August 13, 2009 (Doc. 28). No written objections have been filed.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the findings and conclusions in the Report and Recommendation are ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of the court and that this cause is reversed and remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings pursuant to 405 U.S.C. § 405(g).
Upon remand, the ALJ should further consider the limitations imposed by Plaintiff's visual impairments, the extent to which such limitations affect Plaintiff's RFC, and the visual demands of Plaintiff's past relevant work, either as she actually performed it or as such work is generally performed.