From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rehm v. Colvin

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BLUEFIELD
Mar 18, 2014
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:12-07502 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 18, 2014)

Summary

finding ALJ's misstatements as to claimant's limitations in posing hypothetical question constituted harmless error where misstatements did not affect jobs identified by vocational expert

Summary of this case from Critchley v. Colvin

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:12-07502

03-18-2014

OTIS RAY REHM, JR., Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.


MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

By Standing Order, this action was referred to United States Magistrate R. Clarke VanDervort for submission of findings and recommendation regarding disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Magistrate Judge VanDervort submitted to the court his Findings and Recommendation on February 28, 2014, in which he recommended that the court deny plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings, grant defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings, affirm the final decision of the Commissioner, and dismiss this matter from the court's docket.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), plaintiff was allotted fourteen days and three mailing days in which to file any objections to Magistrate Judge VanDervort's Findings and Recommendation. The failure of any party to file such objections within the time allowed constitutes a waiver of such party's right to a de novo review by this court. Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363 (4th Cir. 1989).

Neither party filed any objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations within the required time period. Accordingly, the court adopts the Findings and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge VanDervort as follows:

1. Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED;
2. Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED;
3. The final decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED; and
4. This case is DISMISSED from the court's docket.

The Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to counsel of record.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th of March, 2014.

ENTER:

___________________

David A. Faber

Senior United States District Judge


Summaries of

Rehm v. Colvin

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BLUEFIELD
Mar 18, 2014
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:12-07502 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 18, 2014)

finding ALJ's misstatements as to claimant's limitations in posing hypothetical question constituted harmless error where misstatements did not affect jobs identified by vocational expert

Summary of this case from Critchley v. Colvin

stating the ALJ asked the VE to consider a hypothetical individual who could "easily" climb stairs, but in his decision, the ALJ found the claimant could only "occasionally" climb stairs

Summary of this case from Mendenhall v. Colvin
Case details for

Rehm v. Colvin

Case Details

Full title:OTIS RAY REHM, JR., Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BLUEFIELD

Date published: Mar 18, 2014

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:12-07502 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 18, 2014)

Citing Cases

Mendenhall v. Colvin

A misstatement by an ALJ in a hypothetical is not fatal to the opinion offered by a VE. A court may find…

Jason A. v. O'Malley

Although Defendant does not cite to any case where a Court found an ALJ's error at step five to be harmless…