Summary
finding a conflict between a telephone quotation clerk job, described in the DOT as sedentary work, and the need for a sit/stand option
Summary of this case from Garst v. BerryhillOpinion
3:14-cv-00396-LRH-WGC
08-10-2015
ORDER
Before this Court is the Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (doc. #17) entered on July 17, 2015, recommending granting Plaintiff's Motion for Reversal and/or Remand (doc. #10), filed on December 12, 2014, and denying Defendant's Cross-Motion to Affirm (doc. #16), filed on March 13, 2015. No objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed. The action was referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)B and Local Rule 1B 1-4 of the Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada.
Refers to court's docket number. --------
The Court has conducted its de novo review in this case, has fully considered the pleadings and memoranda of the parties and other relevant matters of record pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b) (1) (B) and Local Rule IB 3-2. The Court determines that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (#17) entered on July 17, 2015, should be adopted and accepted.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (#17) entered on July 17, 2015, is adopted and accepted, and Plaintiff's Motion for Reversal and/or Remand (doc. #10) is GRANTED and this matter is REMANDED to the ALJ to address the apparent conflicts between the VE testimony and the DOT as indicated in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Cross-Motion to Affirm (doc. #16) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 10th day of August, 2015.
/s/_________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE