From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jennings v. Astrue

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Jan 31, 2011
CIVIL NO. 09-1642 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 31, 2011)

Opinion

CIVIL NO. 09-1642.

January 31, 2011


ORDER


AND NOW, this 31st day of January 2011, upon consideration of Plaintiff's request for review [doc. no. 5], Defendant's response thereto [doc. no. 8], United States Magistrate David Strawbridge's Report Recommendation [doc. no. 9], Plaintiff's Objections thereto [doc. no. 10], Defendant's Response [doc. no. 11], and a review of the record in the above-captioned matter, and for the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED in part and REJECTED in part; and,
2. Plaintiff's Objections are SUSTAINED; and,
3. The decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED; and
4. Judgment is entered for the PLAINTIFF; and,
5. The matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner solely for the calculation of disability insurance benefits; and,
6. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to mark this case as CLOSED.

It is so ORDERED.


Summaries of

Jennings v. Astrue

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Jan 31, 2011
CIVIL NO. 09-1642 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 31, 2011)
Case details for

Jennings v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:DOLORES E. JENNINGS, JR., Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Jan 31, 2011

Citations

CIVIL NO. 09-1642 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 31, 2011)

Citing Cases

Friedberg v. Saul

Morales v. Apfel, 225 F.3d 310, 320 (3d Cir. 2000). Diaz, 388 F. Supp. 3d at 391 (citing Brownawell, 554 F.3d…

Chalfant v. Colvin

(R. 297-317) Consequently, they are not relevant to the issue of whether Chalfant was disabled on or before…