Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_12-cv-00321/USCOURTS-azd-4_12-cv-00321-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Anthony Martin DeSoto, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner 

of Social Security Administration, 

Defendant.

No. CV-12-00321-TUC-CKJ

ORDER 

 On July 18, 2013, Magistrate Judge D. Thomas Ferraro issued a Report and 

Recommendation, (Doc. 39), in which he recommended that this Court remand the case 

to the Administrative Law Judge1

 (“ALJ”). 

 Specifically, Magistrate Judge Ferraro recommended that the case be remanded to 

the ALJ because the ALJ erred in rejecting the opinion of Dr. Shapiro without providing 

specific, legitimate reasons, the ALJ’s credibility finding with respect to Plaintiff’s foot 

deformity was not based on clear and convincing evidence, the ALJ failed to provide 

clear and convincing reasons to discount Plaintiff’s allegations of fatigue, and the ALJ 

committed error when he rejected Plaintiff’s mother’s testimony without providing a 

specific reason for doing so. 

 Magistrate Judge Ferraro recommends that the case be remanded to the ALJ for 

further development of the case and reconsideration of the evidence from Dr. Shapiro and 

Plaintiff’s credibility, with respect to the impairment of his feet and his fatigue. Further, 

 

1

 The Court notes that the Report and Recommendation incorrectly referred to the Administrative Law Judge using the masculine pronoun “he.” 

Case 4:12-cv-00321-CKJ-DTF Document 40 Filed 08/14/13 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

the ALJ must reconsider Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity and his consideration at 

Steps Four and Five of the required analysis, including gathering additional vocational 

expert testimony if warranted. See C.F.R. §§404.920(a)(4), 416.1520(a)(4); Heckler v. 

Campbell, 461 U.S. 458, 460-462 (1983). 

 No objections have been filed within the time provided by Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 72(b)(2). 

 Accordingly, after an independent review, IT IS ORDERED: 

 1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 39) is ADOPTED. 

 2. This matter is remanded to the Administrative Law Judge for further 

consideration consistent with the terms of this Order and the Report and 

Recommendation, (Doc. 39). 

 3. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in this matter and close its file. 

 Dated this 13th day of August, 2013. 

 

Case 4:12-cv-00321-CKJ-DTF Document 40 Filed 08/14/13 Page 2 of 2