Easly v. Commissioner Social Security Administration, No. 3:2008cv00351 - Document 15 (D. Or. 2009)

Court Description: ORDER: Adopting the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendation 12 . The Court Reverses the decision of the Commissioner and Remands this matter pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings consistent with the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations. Signed on 4/2/09 by Judge Anna J. Brown. (gm)

Download PDF

Easly v. Commissioner Social Security Administration Doc. 15 F!L£D'09 RPR 0215:16uSDC-ORP IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON DENNIS EASLY, 08-CV-351-PK Plaintiff, ORDER v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant. RORY JOSEPH LINERUD Linerud Law Firm P.O. Box 1105 Salem, OR 97308 (503) 587-8985 Attorneys for Plaintiff KARIN J. IMMERGUT united States Attorney BRITTANIA I. HOBBS Assistant united States Attorney 1000 S.W. Third Avenue, Suite 600 Portland, OR 97204-2902 (503) 727-1158 1 ORDER Dockets.Justia.com DAVID MORADO Office of the General Counsel DAVID M. BLUME Special Assistant United States Attorney Social Security Administration 701 5 th Avenue, Suite 2900 MiS 901 Seattle, WA 98104-7075 (206) 615-2545 Attorneys for Defendant BROWN, Judge. Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued Findings and Recommendation (#12) on January 6, 2009, in which he recommends this Court reverse and remand the Commissioner's decision denying Plaintiff's application for supplemental security income benefits and disability insurance benefits for further administrative proceedings as to Easly's disability status after December 31, 2004. Defendant filed timely Objections to the Findings and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 636(b) (1) (B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 (b) . When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1). See also united States v. Reyna- Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9 th Cir. 2003) (en bane); United States v. Bernhardt, 840 F.2d 1441, 1444 (9 th Cir. 1988). This Court has carefully considered Defendant's Objections 2 ORDER and concludes they do not provide a basis to modify the Findings and Recommendation. The Magistrate Judge thoroughly analyzed the substance of Defendant's Objections to the Findings and Recommendation and concluded the record does not reflect the extent to which Plaintiff's nonexertional limitations erode the available base of light-range jobs. Accordingly, Social Security Ruling 83-14 requires the ALJ to obtain the testimony of a vocational expert rather than rely solely on the Medicalvocational Guidelines at Step Five of the disability determination. This Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's conclusion. The Court also has reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and does not find any error in the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation. CONCLUSION For these reasons, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge papak's Findings and Recommendation (#12). Accordingly, the Court REVERSES the decision of the Commissioner and REMANDS this matter pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings consistent with the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations. Section 406(b) of the Social Security Act "controls fees for representation [of Social Security claimants] in court." 3 ORDER Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 794 (2002) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1728(a). Under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), "a court may allow 'a reasonable [attorneys') fee . . . not in excess of 25 percent of the . . past-due benefits' awarded to the claimant." 795 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) (l)(A». Because § rd. at 406(b) does not provide a time limit for filing applications for attorneys' fees and Federal Rule 54(d) (2) (B) is not practical in the context of Social Security sentence-four remands, Federal Rule of civil Procedure 60(b) (6) governs. Massett v. Astrue, 04-CV-1006 (Brown, J.) (issued June 30, 2008). See also McGraw v. Barnhart, 450 F.3d 493, 505 (10 th Cir. 2006). To ensure that any future application for attorneys' fees under § 406(b) is filed "within a reasonable time" as required under Rule 60(b) (6), the Court orders as follows: If the Commissioner finds Plaintiff is disabled on remand and awards Plaintiff past-due benefits and if, as a result, Plaintiff intends to submit such application for attorneys' fees under § 406(b), Plaintiff shall submit any such application within 60 days from the issuance of the Notice of Award by the Commissioner. IT IS SO OR~~ ~I DATED this l l s t dilY of March .. 2009·. '1J U7:1 United States District Judge 4 ORDER

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.