Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

McDonough v. Astrue

June 30, 2008

JAMES J. MCDONOUGH, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: McClure, J.

Magistrate Judge Mannion

ORDER

BACKGROUND

On April 2, 2007, plaintiff, James J. McDonough, commenced this civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). McDonough seeks review of the Commissioner's decision to deny his application for Social Security disability insurance benefits and asserts that the Commissioner's decision was not supported by substantial evidence.

The matter was initially referred to United States Magistrate Judge Malachy E. Mannion. On June 4, 2008, the magistrate judge filed a fifteen-page report and recommendation. (Rec. Doc. No. 10.) The magistrate judge found that the Commissioner's decision to deny plaintiff disability benefits was based on substantial evidence and recommended that plaintiff's appeal be denied. (Id. at 15.)

On June 23, 2008, plaintiff filed objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. (Rec. Doc. No. 11.) For the following reasons, we will decline to adopt the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, will grant McDonough's appeal, and will remand the case to the ALJ for further consideration.

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review

We have jurisdiction to hear this claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Our role is to determine whether there is substantial evidence in the administrative record to support the Commissioner's decision and findings of fact. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Plummer v. Apfel, 186 F.3d 422, 427 (3d Cir. 1999). "Substantial evidence means 'such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.'" Jones v. Barnhart, 364 F.3d 501, 503 (3d Cir. 2004) (quoting Jesurum v. Sec'y of the U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 48 F.3d 114, 117 (3d Cir. 1995) (quoting Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971)). "It is less than a preponderance of the evidence but more than a mere scintilla." Id. The substantial evidence standard is a deferential standard of review. Id.

A district court reviews de novo those portions of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation to which a party objects. L.R. 72.3. The court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." Id.

II. Analysis

There is a five-step evaluation process to determine whether an individual is disabled for purposes of Supplemental Security Income disability benefits. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920. The Commissioner must sequentially determine: (1) whether the applicant is engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) whether the applicant has a severe impairment; (3) whether the applicant's impairment meets or equals a listed impairment; (4) whether the applicant's impairment prevents the applicant from performing past relevant work; and (5) whether the applicant's impairment prevents the applicant from doing any other work, taking into consideration the applicant's residual functional capacity, age, education and work experience.

The instant action was ultimately decided at the fifth step of the evaluation process. The ALJ concluded that plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity to perform a narrow range of light work treated as sedentary and that such work existed in significant numbers in the national economy. (Tr., Rec. Doc. No. 4, at 26.) In his report and recommendation, the magistrate judge determined that the ALJ's findings were supported by substantial evidence and recommended that plaintiff's appeal be denied. (Rec. Doc. No. 10, at 15.)

As mentioned, plaintiff has objected to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. Specifically, plaintiff argues ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.