From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Orchard v. Saul

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mar 4, 2020
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:18-CV-2297 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 4, 2020)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:18-CV-2297

03-04-2020

KAREN JEAN ORCHARD, Plaintiff v. ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant


( ) ORDER

AND NOW, this 4th day of March, 2020, upon consideration of the report (Doc. 19) of Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick, recommending that the court vacate the decision of the administrative law judge denying plaintiff Karen Jean Orchard's application for disability insurance benefits, and it appearing that the Commissioner of Social Security has not objected to the report, see FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2), and the court noting that failure of a party to timely object to a magistrate judge's conclusions "may result in forfeiture of de novo review at the district court level," Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187, 194 (3d Cir. 2007) (citing Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878-79 (3d Cir. 1987)), but that, as a matter of good practice, a district court should afford "reasoned consideration" to the uncontested portions of the report, E.E.O.C. v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 100 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting Henderson, 812 F.2d at 879), in order to "satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record," FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b), advisory committee notes, and, following an independent review of the record, the court agreeing with Judge Mehalchick's analysis and her conclusion that the administrative law judge did not properly evaluate Orchard's sleep apnea diagnosis, and the court concluding that there is no clear error on the face of the record, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The report (Doc. 19) of Magistrate Judge Mehalchick is ADOPTED.

2. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in favor of Orchard and against the Commissioner as set forth in the following paragraph.

3. The Commissioner's decision is VACATED and this matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner with instructions to conduct a new administrative hearing, develop the record fully, and evaluate the evidence appropriately in accordance with this order and the report (Doc. 19) of Magistrate Judge Mehalchick.

4. The Clerk of Court shall thereafter CLOSE this case.

/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER

Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Middle District of Pennsylvania


Summaries of

Orchard v. Saul

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mar 4, 2020
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:18-CV-2297 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 4, 2020)
Case details for

Orchard v. Saul

Case Details

Full title:KAREN JEAN ORCHARD, Plaintiff v. ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Mar 4, 2020

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:18-CV-2297 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 4, 2020)

Citing Cases

Mary L. v. Kijakazi

However, cases considering the harmless error doctrine in the context of social security appeals “strongly…