The Commissioner did not file Objections to the Report 1

and Recommendation.

The role of this Court is to determine whether the 2

Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence on

the record. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Burns v. Barnhart, 312 F.3d

113, 118 (3d Cir. 2002). Upon review of the Report and

Recommendation and the decision of the ALJ, the Court accepts the

findings of Magistrate Judge Caracappa that the Commissioner’s

decision denying plaintiff SSI is not supported by substantial

evidence on the record. 

Whether the Court, however, should award benefits, as

recommended by Magistrate Judge Caracappa, or remand the matter

for further administrative proceedings requires additional

discussion. The Third Circuit has held that the district court

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MANUEL E. RODRIGUEZ, : CIVIL ACTION

:

Plaintiff : NO. 05-1786

:

v. :

:

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, :

Commissioner of Social : 

Security, :

:

Defendant :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 26th day of April, 2006, upon

consideration of the Report and Recommendation filed by

Magistrate Judge Linda K. Caracappa (doc. no. 19) and the cross 1

motions for summary judgment filed by the parties (doc. nos. 9 &

15), it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and

ADOPTED;

2

Case 2:05-cv-01786-ER Document 20 Filed 04/27/06 Page 1 of 3
should award benefits “only when [1] the administrative record of

the case has been fully developed and when [2] substantial

evidence on the record as a whole indicates that the claimant is

disabled and entitled to benefits.” Morales v. Apfel, 225 F.3d

310, 320 (3d Cir. 2000) (quoting Podedworny v. Harris, 745 F.2d

210, 221-22 (3d Cir. 1984)). “When faced with such cases, it is

unreasonable for a court to give the ALJ another opportunity to

consider new evidence concerning the disability because the

administrative proceeding would result only in further delay in

the receipt of benefits.” Podeworny, 745 F.2d at 222.

Both parts of the test are met here. First, the

administrative record has been fully developed. In cases where

the ALJ did not complete the five-step sequential evaluation, the

Third Circuit has been hesitant to award benefits and will remand

the matter for further administrative proceedings. See Newell v.

Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 347 F.3d 541, 549-50 (3d Cir. 2003). 

However, where the record is fully developed and further

administrative hearings would merely delay the ultimate receipt

of benefits, the court should award benefits. See Morales, 225

F.3d at 320; Woody v. Sec’y of Health & Human Serv., 859 F.2d

1156, 116-63 (3d Cir. 1988); Caffee v. Schweiker, 752 F.2d 63, 68

(3d Cir. 1985).

In the instant case, the ALJ discussed each step of the

five-step sequential evaluation. (While the ALJ found that

plaintiff did not satisfy step four, she proceeded to discuss

step five.) Additionally, plaintiff’s case has already once been

remanded back to the ALJ and plaintiff has been subjected to

several consultative examinations. The Court finds that the

record is fully developed and there is no justification to add

further abeyance. 

Second, there is “substantial evidence on the record as

a whole indicat[ing] that [plaintiff] is disabled and entitled to

benefits.” Morales, 225 F.3d at 320. Over six years of

administrative and judicial proceedings have produced a record

that reveals that plaintiff suffers from a disabling mental

impairment, even absent the impact of his drug addiction, that

warrants supplemental security income. (Report & Recommendation

16-24.) 

Accordingly, the Court finds that the decision of the

ALJ is reversed and benefits should be awarded. Remand for

further administrative hearings would only delay a conclusion

that can be reached by this Court now–that plaintiff suffers from

2

Case 2:05-cv-01786-ER Document 20 Filed 04/27/06 Page 2 of 3
a sever mental disability that renders him unable to engage in

substantial gainful activity. 

3

2. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is

GRANTED;

3. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED; 

4. The decision of the Commissioner, which denied

disability insurance benefits and supplemental

security income to Plaintiff, is REVERSED; and

5. The matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner for a

calculation of benefits only.

 

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

 S/Eduardo C. Robreno 

EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J.

Case 2:05-cv-01786-ER Document 20 Filed 04/27/06 Page 3 of 3