Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Mathis v. Astrue

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA


January 26, 2010

TYREEK L. MATHIS PLAINTIFF,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jan E. Dubois, J.

ORDER

AND NOW, this 26th day of January, 2010, after careful review and independent consideration of Plaintiff's Request for Review and Reversal of Defendant's Final Administrative Decision (Document No. 11, filed June 11, 2009), Defendant's Response to Request for Review of Plaintiff (Document No. 13, filed July 14, 2009), Plaintiff's Reply to Defendant's Response Opposing Plaintiff's Request for Judicial Review (Document No. 16, filed August 12, 2009), and the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Carol Sandra Moore Wells dated December 22, 2009 (Document No. 19), there being no objection, and good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. The Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Carol Sandra Moore Wells dated December 22, 2009, is APPROVED and ADOPTED;

2. Plaintiff's Request for Review is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART;

3. The case is REMANDED to the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration for the conduct of additional proceedings by the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") consistent with the Report and Recommendation. Upon remand, the ALJ shall: (a) re-evaluate the work-related functional limitations caused by plaintiff's severe mental impairment; in particular, the ALJ shall consider all of the germane findings made by Richard N. Landis, Ph.D., and the testimony of plaintiff's mother; (b) re-evaluate plaintiff's credibility concerning his symptoms taking into account the corroboration provided by his mother; (c) re-evaluate plaintiff's residual functional capacity ("RFC") in light of re-evaluating plaintiff's severe mental impairment and his credibility; (d) pose hypothetical questions to a vocational expert which incorporate plaintiff's new RFC; and, (e) determine whether plaintiff meets or medically equals Listed Impairment 11.03; and,

4. In all other respects, Plaintiff's Request for Review is DENIED.

20100126

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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