From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hogansen v. Astrue

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Mar 18, 2011
Civ. No. 09-6240-CL (D. Or. Mar. 18, 2011)

Opinion

Civ. No. 09-6240-CL.

March 18, 2011


ORDER


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 the legal principles de novo. See Lorin Corp. v Goto Co., Ltd., 700 F.2d 1202, 1206 (9th Cir. 1983).

I have given the legal issues de novo review. I agree with Magistrate Judge Clarke that the ALJ erred in evaluating the opinions of Drs. Brewster and Alley, and that this case should be remanded for further proceedings rather than an award of benefits. Accordingly, I ADOPT the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Clarke.

CONCLUSION

Magistrate Judge Clarke's Report and Recommendation (#19) is adopted. Pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the decision of the Commissioner is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Report and Recommendation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Hogansen v. Astrue

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Mar 18, 2011
Civ. No. 09-6240-CL (D. Or. Mar. 18, 2011)
Case details for

Hogansen v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:MARY E. HOGANSEN, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social…

Court:United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Mar 18, 2011

Citations

Civ. No. 09-6240-CL (D. Or. Mar. 18, 2011)