(SS) Hladek, Sr. v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARC JOSEPH HLADEK, SR., ) Case No.: 1:22-cv-1180 JLT HBK ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING 13 ) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ) JUDGMENT IN PART, GRANTING 14 v. ) DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO REMAND FOR ) FURTHER PROCEEDINGS, AND 15 MARTIN O’MALLEY, ) REMANDING TO THE CASE FOR FURTHER Commissioner of Social Security,1 ) PROCEEDINGS 16 ) ) (Docs. 14, 19, 21) Defendant. 17 ) ) ORDER DIRECTING ENTRY OF JUDGMENT 18 ) IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF AND AGAINST ) DEFENDANT COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 19 ) SECURITY 20 Marc Joseph Hladek, Sr. seeks judicial review of a final decision denying his application 21 for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff 22 asserts the ALJ erred in evaluating the record and the matter should be remanded for the payment 23 of benefits. (Doc. 14.) The Commissioner concedes the ALJ erred in evaluating the medical 24 evidence and asserts the matter should be remanded for further administrative proceedings and 25 medical expert testimony. (Doc. 19 at 6.) 26 The magistrate judge found “there are outstanding issues that must be resolved before a 27 1 The Court substituted Martin O’Malley, who was appointed the Commissioner of Social Security, as the 28 defendant in this suit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). 1 | determination can be made, and it is not clear from the record that the ALJ would be required to 2 | find a claimant disabled if all the evidence were properly evaluated. . .” (Doc. 21 at 11; see also 3 | id. at 8-11.) Therefore, the magistrate judge determined a “remand for further proceedings 1s 4 | appropriate.” (/d. at 11.) The magistrate judge recommended Plaintiff's motion for summary 5 || judgment be granted in part, the Commissioner’s motion to remand for further administrative 6 | proceedings be granted, and the final decision be reversed and remanded for further 7 | administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Ud.) 8 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on the parties and notified them that 9 | any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 21 at 12.) The Court advised the parties that the 10 | “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” 11 Ud., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file 12 | objections, and the time to do so has passed. 13 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court performed a de novo review of this 14 | case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and 15 || Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 16 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on January 12, 2024 (Doc. 21) are 17 ADOPTED in full. 18 2. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 14) is GRANTED IN PART. 19 3. Defendant’s Motion to Remand for Further Administrative Proceedings (Doc. 19) 20 is GRANTED. 21 4. Pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C.§ 405(g), the Court REVERSES the 22 Commissioner’s decision and REMANDS the action for further proceedings. 23 5. The Clerk of Court SHALL enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff Marc Joseph 24 Hladek, Sr., and against Defendant Commissioner of Social Security. 25 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. o7 | Dated: January 29, 2024 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28