From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Chilcote v. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON MEDFORD DIVISION
May 14, 2013
No. 3:12-cv-421-CL (D. Or. May. 14, 2013)

Opinion

No. 3:12-cv-421-CL

05-14-2013

THERESA CHILCOTE, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant.


ORDER

PANNER, District Judge:

Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke filed a.Report and Recommendation, and the matter is now before this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Although no objections have been filed, this court reviews legal principles novo. See Lorin Corp. v Goto & Co., Ltd., 700 F.2d 1202, 120.6 (8th Cir. 1983).

I agree with Magistrate Judge Clarke that the ALJ erred in finding that plaintiff's ulnar nerve irritation was not severe, and that the ALJ's error was not harmless. Accordingly, I ADOPT the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Clarke.

CONCLUSION

Magistrate Judge Clarke's Report and Recommendation (#18) is adopted. The decision of the Commissioner is reversed and remanded pursuant to sentence.four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with the Report and Recommendation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

___________

OWEN M. PANNER

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Chilcote v. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON MEDFORD DIVISION
May 14, 2013
No. 3:12-cv-421-CL (D. Or. May. 14, 2013)
Case details for

Chilcote v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:THERESA CHILCOTE, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner, Social…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON MEDFORD DIVISION

Date published: May 14, 2013

Citations

No. 3:12-cv-421-CL (D. Or. May. 14, 2013)