EUBANKS
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Commissioner's decision denying Social Security benefits must be reversed and remanded because the Administrative Law Judge failed to obtain sufficient vocational expert evidence and resolve conflicts between the vocational expert's testimony and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles.
[1] An Administrative Law Judge must obtain supplemental vocational expert evidence to determine whether a significant number of jobs exist in the national economy that a cla…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDewey Lee Eubanks applied for Social Security benefits. The Administrative Law Judge issued a decision denying benefits based in part on vocational ex…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Remand For Further Administrative Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
The Magistrate Judge has entered a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the Commissioner’s Unopposed Motion for Entry of Judgment with Remand (Doc. 21) be granted. (Doc. 22.) No party has objected and the time to do so has expired. A district judge may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of objections, a district judge is not required to review the factual findings in the report de novo, but legal conclusions are reviewed de novo even without an objection. Id.; Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F. 2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993). After an independent review of the record, and noting the lack of any objection, the Court agrees with the well reasoned Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 22) is ADOPTED and made a part of this Order for all purposes.
2. The Commissioner’s Unopposed Motion for Entry of Judgment with Remand (Doc. 21) is GRANTED. 3. The decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED and this case is REMANDED under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative action and proceedings as follows: Upon remand, the Appeals Council will (1) offer the claimant the opportunity for a new hearing; (2) instruct the Administrative Law Judge to seek supplemental vocational expert evidence to determine whether there are a significant number of jobs in the national economy that the claimant can perform; before relying on the vocational expert evidence, identify and resolve any conflicts between the occupational evidence provided by the vocational expert and information in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) (Social Security Ruling 00-4p); and (3) issue a new decision. 4. Plaintiff is instructed that any application for fees, costs, or expenses must comply with the Court’s Standing Order on Management of Social Security Cases, In re Administrative Orders of the Chief Judge, No. 3:21-mc-1-TJC, Doc. 43 (Dec. 7, 2021). 5. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly, terminate any pending motions and deadlines, and close the file. ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, on February 7, 2022.