Summary
finding that conflicts between the DOT and VE testimony involving occasional stooping and frequent stooping and intellectual ability did not require remand because plaintiff's counsel did not bring the conflicts to the ALJ's attention and the ALJ was not required to conduct his or her own investigation of the VE testimony.
Summary of this case from Cross v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.Opinion
CASE NO. 1:09cv1115.
July 30, 2010
ORDER
Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation ("R R") of a magistrate judge recommending that this case be remanded for a rehearing under the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) primarily because the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"), applying the wrong legal standard, conducted a redetermination rather than a continuing disability review. (Doc. No. 16.) Objections to the R R were due on July 29, 2010. The Commissioner filed a notice that he would not be filing any objections. (Doc. No. 17.) Not surprisingly, plaintiff has not filed any objections.
There being no objections to the R R, the Court hereby ACCEPTS the R R and will by separate Judgment Entry remand this matter for a rehearing before an ALJ. The rehearing should be a continuing disability review.