Opinion
Civ. 22-3030 (JWB/DJF)
12-12-2023
Ariel D.,[1] Plaintiff, v. Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant.
Bryan Konoski, Esq., Konoski & Partners, P.C.; James H. Greeman, Esq., Greeman Toomey, counsel for Plaintiff. Ana H. Voss, Esq., United States Attorney's Office; Angela Thornton-Millard, Esq., James D. Sides, Esq., and Sophie Doroba, Esq., Social Security Administration, counsel for Defendant.
Bryan Konoski, Esq., Konoski & Partners, P.C.; James H. Greeman, Esq., Greeman Toomey, counsel for Plaintiff.
Ana H. Voss, Esq., United States Attorney's Office; Angela Thornton-Millard, Esq., James D. Sides, Esq., and Sophie Doroba, Esq., Social Security Administration, counsel for Defendant.
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
JERRY W. BLACKWELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
United States Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) on November 13, 2023. (Doc. No. 19.) No objections have been filed to that R&R in the time permitted. In the absence of timely objections, the R&R is reviewed for clear error. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996). Having reviewed the R&R, no clear error is found.
Based on the R&R of the Magistrate Judge, and on all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The November 13, 2023 R&R (Doc. No. 19) is ACCEPTED;
2. Plaintiff's Request for Relief (Doc. No. 12) is GRANTED;
3. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 16) is DENIED;
4. The Commissioner's final decision is vacated; and
5. This case is REMANDED to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for further administrative proceedings consistent with the R&R. As stated in the R&R, “[o]n remand the ALJ should: (1) create a logical bridge showing how he considered or resolved the material inconsistencies in the case record to support his decision not to include an absenteeism limitation in Plaintiff's RFC; and (2) recall a vocational expert for testimony to the extent necessary to address a new hypothetical based on any modified RFC.” (Doc. No. 19 at 12-13.)
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.