Hurst v. King

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

APRIL H.,1 Case No. 23-cv-3350 (LMP/LIB)

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER ADOPTING MICHELLE KING, Acting Commissioner REPORT AND of the Social Security Administration,2 RECOMMENDATION

Defendant.

Edward C. Olson, Reitan Law Office, Minneapolis, MN, and David F. Chermol, Chermol & Fishman LLC, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff April H.

Ana H. Voss, United States Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis, MN, Linda H. Green, James D. Sides, and Sophia Doroba, Social Security Administration, Baltimore, MD, for Defendant Michelle King, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration.

Plaintiff April H. appeals the denial of her application for benefits by Defendant Michelle King, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the “Commissioner”). See ECF No. 1. After receiving briefing from April H. and the Commissioner (ECF Nos. 13, 14, 16), United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that the Court reverse the Commissioner’s decision denying benefits and remand to the Social Security

1 This District has adopted the policy of using only the first name and last initial of any nongovernmental parties in Social Security opinions.

2 On January 21, 2025, Michelle King became the Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. The Court substitutes Michelle King as defendant in her official capacity. Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). Administration for additional consideration. See ECF No. 19. The R&R proposes remand specifically for additional consideration by the Commissioner of April H.’s residual

functional capacity in light of the ALJ’s finding that April H. was moderately limited in understanding, remembering, and applying information. Id. at 12–15. 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, 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. The relief of remand for further proceedings requested in April H.’s brief (ECF Nos. 13, 14) is GRANTED.

2. The relief requested in the Commissioner’s brief (ECF No. 16) is DENIED. 3. The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 19) is ADOPTED. 4. The final decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED, and the matter is REMANDED to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings consistent with the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 19).

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

Dated: February 3, 2025 s/Laura M. Provinzino Laura M. Provinzino United States District Judge