Mark J. E. v. Kijakazi
- Paul Magnuson
- 0:20-cv-02047
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Mark J. E. v. Kijakazi, Judge Magnuson adopted a recommendation, partly granted Mark’s motion, denied the Commissioner’s motion, and remanded the case.
Mark J. E. and the Commissioner of Social Security. The Commissioner’s decision was reversed, and the case was returned for further proceedings concerning Mark J. E.’s residual functional capacity and, if necessary, the vocational expert’s hypotheticals.
What happened
In Mark J. E. v. Kijakazi, the court reviewed a magistrate judge’s recommendation concerning the parties’ requests for summary judgment in a Social Security case.
The court found no error in the recommendation. It granted Mark J. E.’s motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part, denied the Commissioner’s motion, reversed the Commissioner’s decision, and sent the case back for further proceedings.
Judge Paul A. Magnuson adopted the recommendation and ordered reconsideration of Mark J. E.’s residual functional capacity and, if necessary, the questions posed to the vocational expert.
The detailed version
- Mark J. E. v. Kijakazi · No. 0:20-cv-02047
- Paul Magnuson
- Dec. 22, 2021
Background
The court considered a Report and Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty. The recommendation addressed Mark J. E.’s motion for summary judgment and the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment. It recommended granting Mark J. E.’s motion in part, denying the Commissioner’s motion, and sending the case back to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
Neither party objected to the recommendation. Because there were no objections, the court reviewed it for clear error rather than conducting a new review of the disputed issues.
Ruling
The court adopted the Report and Recommendation after finding no error, clear or otherwise. It ordered the following:
- Mark J. E.’s motion for summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part. - The Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment was denied. - The Commissioner’s decision was reversed. - The case was remanded to the Commissioner under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
The remand requires formulation of Mark J. E.’s residual functional capacity that reflects consideration of all severe and non-severe impairments identified at earlier steps of the administrative law judge’s decision. The Commissioner must also reconsider the hypotheticals posed to the vocational expert, if necessary. Judge Paul A. Magnuson directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.