Summary
finding a limitation to simple, routine tasks "appears to be more consistent with GED reasoning level one than two or three because the abilities to perform simple tasks and to make simple work-related decisions in the RFC are similar to the provision for applying commonsense understanding to carry out simple instructions at GED reasoning level one. The need for routine tasks . . . is also consistent with the provision for standard situations at GED reasoning level one. In contrast, the DOT's descriptions of GED reasoning levels two and three indicate these jobs require more detail and variables than the RFC assessment describes."
Summary of this case from Taylor v. BerryhillOpinion
Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-317-TMC
10-18-2017
Leonwood Piner, Plaintiff, v. Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration , Defendant.
ORDER
Plaintiff, Leonwood Piner, brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3), seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") denying his claim for disability insurance benefits. (ECF No. 1). This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation ("Report") of the United States Magistrate Judge, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (D.S.C.). (ECF No. 12). The Report recommends that the Commissioner's decision be reversed and remanded pursuant to sentence four of § 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with the Report. (ECF No. 12). Specifically, the Magistrate Judge determined that the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") failed to recognize or resolve a conflict between the Vocational Expert's testimony and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles' descriptions of identified jobs, and, therefore, "substantial evidence does not support [the ALJ's] citation of those jobs to meet the Commissioner's burden at step five" of the review process. (ECF No. 12 at 34). Plaintiff has not filed any objections to the Report, and on October 12, 2017, the Commissioner filed a notice of her intent not to file any objections to the Report. (ECF No. 13). However, Defendant does not concede that her administrative decision denying benefits to Plaintiff was not substantially justified. (ECF No. 13).
The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final determination in this matter remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). In the absence of objections, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the Report. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, "in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation." Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
After a thorough and careful review of the record, the court adopts the Report of the Magistrate Judge, which is incorporated herein by reference. The Commissioner's final decision is REVERSED AND REMANDED pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative review as set forth in the Report. (ECF No. 12).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge Anderson, South Carolina
October 18, 2017