From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Thrower v. Colvin

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION
Sep 9, 2016
No. 5:15-CV-290-FL (E.D.N.C. Sep. 9, 2016)

Summary

concluding that the case should be remanded in pertinent part because the ALJ failed to address inconsistent evidence indicating that the plaintiff's migraine headaches may cause functional limitations

Summary of this case from Williams v. Colvin

Opinion

No. 5:15-CV-290-FL

09-09-2016

MONICA N. THROWER, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.


JUDGMENT

Decision by Court.

This action came before the Honorable Louise W. Flanagan, United States District Judge, for consideration of the parties' cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings and the memorandum and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, to which no objections were filed. IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED in accordance with the court's order entered September 9, 2016, and for the reasons set forth more specifically therein, that plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted and defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied. This matter is remanded to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with the memorandum and recommendation. This Judgment Filed and Entered on September 9 , 2016, and Copies To:
Lisa M. Rayo (via CM/ECF Notice of Electronic Filing)
Charlotte Williams Hall (via CM/ECF Notice of Electronic Filing) September 9, 2016

JULIE RICHARDS JOHNSTON, CLERK

/s/ Christa N. Baker

(By) Christa N. Baker, Deputy Clerk


Summaries of

Thrower v. Colvin

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION
Sep 9, 2016
No. 5:15-CV-290-FL (E.D.N.C. Sep. 9, 2016)

concluding that the case should be remanded in pertinent part because the ALJ failed to address inconsistent evidence indicating that the plaintiff's migraine headaches may cause functional limitations

Summary of this case from Williams v. Colvin

recommending remand where the ALJ gave great weight to the state agency opinions, but did not explain why the restrictions related to noise and vibration that the experts assessed based on the claimant's migraine headaches were not included in the ALJ's RFC finding

Summary of this case from Jarrell v. Berryhill
Case details for

Thrower v. Colvin

Case Details

Full title:MONICA N. THROWER, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION

Date published: Sep 9, 2016

Citations

No. 5:15-CV-290-FL (E.D.N.C. Sep. 9, 2016)

Citing Cases

Williams v. Colvin

However, Dr. Dimmig did not address limitations with respect to Plaintiff's ability to stand or walk. The…

Jarrell v. Berryhill

therapy); Propst v. Colvin, No. 1:16CV00082, 2016 WL 5107093, at *4-6 (M.D.N.C. Sept. 20, 2016) (holding that…