Friedman v. Colvin

• Court: District Court, D. Minnesota
• Decided: January 13, 2025
• Docket: 0:24-cv-00096
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

CHAZ J. F., Case No. 24-cv-96 (LMP/DLM)

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting RECOMMENDATION Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

James H. Greeman, Greeman Toomey, Minneapolis, MN, for Plaintiff.

Ana H. Voss, United States Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis, MN, Molly Barry and Sophie Doroba, Social Security Administration, Baltimore, MD, for Defendant.

Plaintiff Chaz J. F. appeals the denial of his application for disability benefits by Defendant Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the “Commissioner”). See ECF No. 1. After receiving briefing from Chaz J. F. and the Commissioner, ECF Nos. 9, 11, United States Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that the Court reverse the Commissioner’s decision denying benefits in part because substantial evidence in the record failed to support the Administrative Law Judge’s residual functional capacity determination on Chaz J. F.’s ability to function independently. ECF No. 13 at 15–24. The R&R recommends remanding this matter to the Social Security Administration for additional consideration, specifically to consider appropriate functional limitations to account for the structure and support that have been necessary to accommodate Chaz J. F.’s impairments. See id. at 24–25.

Neither party objected to the R&R, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2), so the Court reviews the R&R for clear error, Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam). Finding no clear error, the Court adopts the R&R, reverses the Commissioner’s decision in part, and remands to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings. CONCLUSION Based upon the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Chaz J. F.’s motion for judgment on the administrative record (ECF No. 9) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; 2. The Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the administrative record (ECF No. 11) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART;

3. The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 13) is ADOPTED IN FULL; and 4. The final decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED IN PART, and the matter is REMANDED to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings consistent with the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 13). LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

Dated: January 13, 2025 s/Laura M. Provinzino Laura M. Provinzino United States District Judge