United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fort Smith Division
May 26, 2015
REGINA M. REYKERS, Plaintiff,
CAROLYN COLVIN, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
BARRY A. BRYANT, Magistrate Judge.
On May 22, 2015, Defendant filed an Unopposed Motion to Remand. ECF No. 12. Defendant states he has contacted Plaintiff's counsel, Davis Duty, who does not oppose the motion. Id. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3) (2009), the Honorable P. K. Holmes, III, referred this Motion to this Court for the purpose of making a report and recommendation. In accordance with that referral, this Court enters the following report and recommendation.
Defendant requests a remand so the Commissioner may conduct further administrative proceedings and further evaluate Plaintiff's disability status. ECF No. 12. Specifically, Defendant requests the case be remanded to an ALJ so that the ALJ will update the record as necessary; assess the severity of the claimant's physical and mental impairments at step two in accordance to the pertinent rulings and regulations including the special technique outlined in 20 CFR §§ 404.1520a for mental impairments; evaluate the opinion evidence pursuant to 20 CFR § 404.1527 and Social Security Rulings 96-2p, 96-5p, 96-6p, and 06-3p; reassess the claimant's residual functional capacity; and if warranted, obtain additional evidence from a vocational expert regarding the effect of the assessed limitations on the occupational base in accordance to SSR 83-14.
Based upon the foregoing, this Court recommends Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Remand Pursuant to Sentence Four of Section 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Social Security Act (ECF No. 12) be GRANTED. In addition, this Court recommends the Plaintiff's Complaint should be dismissed without prejudice and that Plaintiff be allowed to file a motion for attorney's fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412.
The parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of this Report and Recommendation in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The parties are reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the district court. See Thompson v. Nix, 897 F.2d 356, 357 (8th Cir. 1990).