1 The Court’s recitation of relevant facts is derived from the transcript of the

administrative record filed by the Commissioner as part of her answer in accordance with §

205(g)of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which is referred to hereinafter as “R.” Additional

citations appear as necessary.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

AMANDA SCHIBERL, )

) Case Number 04-239 ERIE

Plaintiff )

) District Judge Sean J. McLaughlin

vs. ) Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter

)

JOANNE B. BARNHART, )

Commissioner of Social Security )

Defendant )

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

I. RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the Plaintiff

[Document # 6] be granted. It is further recommended that the Motion for Summary Judgment

filed by the Defendant [Document # 8] be denied. This matter should be remanded to the Social

Security Administration for further proceedings.

REPORT

A. Procedural Background

Plaintiff (Schiberl) brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3),

for judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, who found that

Plaintiff was not entitled to disability insurance benefits (DIB) or supplemental security income

(SSI) under Titles II and XVI, respectively, of the Social Security Act (Act). 

Plaintiff filed applications for DIB and SSI on February 28, 2003, alleging disability

since May 1, 2002, due to a diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. R. 52.1 Plaintiff’s applications for

benefits were denied. R. 28 - 31. At Plaintiff’s request, a hearing was held by an ALJ on

Case 1:04-cv-00239-SJM-SPB Document 10 Filed 08/31/05 Page 1 of 13
2 Included in the record is a medical report from Dr. Rock Heyman regarding a patient 

other than Plaintiff. Not only is the medical report erroneously included in this medical records,

but the U.S. Attorney cites to it at least three times arguing that it is evidence of Plaintiff’s

ability to work. Document # 9, pages 5, 9-10 and 12. Due to the privacy considerations of

someone not a party to this litigation, the mere inclusion of such records is troubling to this

Court, but the repeated references to these records as evidence of this Plaintiff’s ability to work

is shocking. Because of the glaring inaccuracies contained within the brief, this Court

considered striking the pending motion and ordering that a new motion be filed; however, in the

interests of expediency and fairness to the Plaintiff, the Court has decided otherwise. 

2

January 15, 2004, at which Plaintiff and a Vocational Expert testified. Following the hearing,

the ALJ held the record open and received more medical records. 

The ALJ issued a written decision on May 6, 2004 finding that Plaintiff was not

disabled. On August 25, 2004, Plaintiff sought administrative review from the SSA’s Appeals’

Council, which was denied.

Plaintiff now seeks judicial review. Both Schiberl and the Commissioner2 have filed a

motion and cross-motion, respectively, for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the matter is ripe for disposition by this Court.

B. Factual Background

Plaintiff Amanda Schiberl was born on December 26, 1964. Plaintiff was thirty-nine

years old when the Commissioner issued her final decision and as such is considered a younger

individual under the Act. R. 370. Plaintiff has a high school education and has a broadcasting

certificate. R. 370. Plaintiff alleges that she has been unable to work since May 1, 2002 as a

result of multiple sclerosis.

C. Medical Background

In April of 1989, Plaintiff was hospitalized with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder;

dependant personality disorder; and borderline personality disorder. R. 108.

On July 31, 1990, Plaintiff saw her family physician, Dr. Paul Grubb of the Marianne

Family Practice. The medical notes from that visit show that Plaintiff had suffered from severe

Case 1:04-cv-00239-SJM-SPB Document 10 Filed 08/31/05 Page 2 of 13
3

 In lay terms, headaches.

3

depression for over two years coupled with panic attacks and stress headaches. Plaintiff was

diagnosed with depression and musculoskeletal cephalgia3. R. 241. 

On November 17, 1995, Dr. Grubb noted that Plaintiff suffered from intermittent

headaches for over three years. R. 240.

On December 18, 1995, Dr. Grubb noted that Plaintiff had suffered from sleep problems

for two years and noted that she was taking Zoloft, Ultram, and Flexeril and that she had had no

severe headaches. R. 239. 

On April 15, 1996, Plaintiff was treated by Dr. Grubb with an injection of Imitrex for a

severe migraine headache. R. 237. 

On June 30, 1997, Plaintiff presented to Dr. Grubb complaining of radiating lumbar pain

and tingling in her legs which had been going on for two months. R. 234. By July 8, 2005,

Plaintiff complained that the leg pain was worsening. Dr. Grubb prescribed Flexeril and Relafen

for the pain. R. 234. On July 28, 1997, Plaintiff complained of her left eye blurring along with

pain radiating from her eye to her jaw and pain in her tail bone. R. 232. 

On October 30, 1997, Plaintiff presented to Dr. Grubb with lumbar pain and numbness

and tingling in her legs. 

On April 9, 1997, Plaintiff presented to Dr. Grubb complaining of migraine headaches. 

R. 230.

On September 30, 1997, Plaintiff presented to Dr. Grubb complaining of a severe sudden

on-set headache and dizziness. R. 229.

On January 7, 1999, Plaintiff complained to Dr. Grubb of tingling in her upper

extremities with a hot radiating sensation and described dropping things. R. 227. On January

19, 1999, Plaintiff continued to complain of back pain, leg pain and weakness. R. 224.

On March 27, 2002, Plaintiff presented to Dr. Grubb complaining of lightheadedness,

shakiness in her arms and legs, decreased appetite, difficulty sleeping and an inability to get

warm. R. 215. 

Case 1:04-cv-00239-SJM-SPB Document 10 Filed 08/31/05 Page 3 of 13
4 Abnormal neurological sensations including numbness, tingling, burning, prickling and

increased sensitivity. 

4

On May 8, 2002, Plaintiff complained to Dr. Grubb of numbness in her lower legs and

arms, tongue, lips and chin. Dr. Grubb diagnosed her with paresthesias4 and ordered an MRI. 

R. 212. 

On May 21, 2002, Plaintiff presented to Dr. Grubb complaining of severe lower back

pain, radiating down the legs with difficulty standing. R. 209 - 211. Dr. Grubb noted that her

symptoms were sciatica. R. 208. 

On May 22, 2002, Plaintiff underwent a lumbar spine MRI which was essentially

unremarkable. R. 164. Plaintiff had a cranial MRI done on May 29, 2002. The MRI indicated

multiple hyperintensive white matter changes in both cerebral hemispheres involving deep white

matter and subcortical white matter. Such findings were consistent with a demyelinating

process such as multiple sclerosis. R. 163. 

On June 13, 2002, Plaintiff presented to Dr. Grubb complaining of weakness, numbness

in her mouth and tongue, difficulty speaking, numbness in her arms and legs, occasional

incontinence, and stabbing pain in her lower back. Dr. Grubb diagnosed her with possible

multiple sclerosis and sciatica. Dr. Grubb indicated that Plaintiff was unable to work due to

sciatica. R. 206. Plaintiff was referred to Dr. Benjamin Smolar, a neurologist, for further

testing.

By letter dated June 20, 2002, Dr. Smolar indicated that multiple sclerosis was a

suspicion and that further testing would be ordered. R. 150.

On June 25, 2002, Plaintiff presented to Dr. Grubb with similar complaints from the

week before, with the addition of double vision, nausea, slurring of her words, fatigue, dizziness

and aching. Dr. Grubb’s notes indicate a possibility of multiple sclerosis. R. 205. 

On July 1, 2002, Plaintiff had a spinal tap which confirmed a diagnosis of multiple

sclerosis. R. 128. In August of 2002, Dr. Smolar noted that the previous cranial MRI had

indicated white matter (indicative of multiple sclerosis) but he concluded that Plaintiff’s

Case 1:04-cv-00239-SJM-SPB Document 10 Filed 08/31/05 Page 4 of 13
5 Somatization is the process by which psychological needs are expressed in physical

symptoms.

6 An abnormally accelerated rhythm of the heart that results from a rapidly firing

electrical focus. Rates may be in the range of 150 - 250 beats per minute. 

7 Paroxysmal spasms of the digital arteries causing blanching of the fingers and toes. 

5

complaints were largely subjective. Dr. Smolar advised Plaintiff to seek a second opinion. R.

148.

In September of 2002, Plaintiff saw Dr. Galen Mitchell, a neurologist at the University of

Pittsburgh Hospital. Dr. Mitchell’s initial impression was that Plaintiff was suffering from

many neurologic complaints, that she was anxious and depressed with a strong element of

somatization5. Dr. Mitchell referred Plaintiff to a urologist for her bladder complaints and

ordered more testing including another cranial MRI. R. 285 -287.

On November 17, 2002, Plaintiff followed up with Dr. Mitchell who indicated that

although Plaintiff had normal motor strength and upper extremity function, Plaintiff had

relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis as supported by her clinical course and second cranial

MRI. Plaintiff was directed to begin Avonex treatment. R. 282 -283.

On December 13, 2002, Plaintiff was treated at the Emergency Room of Clarion

Hospital for complaints of racing heartbeat. Plaintiff’s EKG was markedly abnormal and an

echocardiogram was also suspicious and Plaintiff was diagnosed with supra ventricular

tachycardia (SVT).6

On January 7, 2003, Plaintiff presented to Dr. Grubb complaining of racing heartbeat,

dizziness, double vision and difficulty opening her left eye. Dr. Grubb diagnosed sinus

ventricular tachycardia, multiple sclerosis and Raynaud7. R. 201 - 202.

On January 13, 2003, Plaintiff was examined by Dr. Michael Hagerty of the

Pennsylvania Heart Group. Dr. Hagerty indicated that Plaintiff had well documented SVT and

noted that her EKG of December 13, 2002 revealed a narrow complex tachycardia with a heart

rate of 220 beats per minute. Dr. Hagerty referred Plaintiff to Dr. Chenarides of the Allegheny

Case 1:04-cv-00239-SJM-SPB Document 10 Filed 08/31/05 Page 5 of 13
8

 Extreme sensitivity to light.

6

General Hospital for “an electrophysiologic evaluation with a specific question as to whether the

patient would be a candidate for EP study and potential curative ablation.” R. 197 - 198. It is

unclear from the record before this Court whether Plaintiff pursued this medical treatment.

Plaintiff was seen again by Dr. Mitchell on February 10, 2003. Plaintiff reported severe

lower back pain along with severe pain and numbness in the bilateral lower extremities, severe

fatigue, mild upper extremity pain, blurred vision with photophobia8, and increased frequency of

urination. In the notes, Dr. Mitchell indicated that Plaintiff had not been on Avonex long enough

to show improvement in her multiple sclerosis symptoms. Plaintiff was referred for an MRI of

her back and was referred to a neuro-opthamologist for her continued blurred vision. R. 275 -

276.

On February 12, 2003, Plaintiff underwent an MRI on her spine. The MRI revealed a

small right paracentral disc herniation at the T8-9 level, mild focal arachnoiditis at T 12 and L1,

with a clumped appearance and adherent to the spinal cord in places, along with a focal disc

herniation at T8-9. R. 273 - 274.

On March 19, 2003, Plaintiff presented at the Clarion Hospital Emergency Room with a

racing heartbeat. An EKG revealed abnormal results. R. 122.

On March 21, 2003, Plaintiff was examined by Dr. Misha Pless, a neuro-opthamologist. 

Dr. Pless noted that Plaintiff suffered mild bilateral optic neuropathy, and based upon her

demyelinating disease, diagnosed mild bilateral optic neuritis. The doctor noted that Plaintiff 

had a mild non-specific visual field defect centrally and concluded the she has pain on

movement and photo-sensitivity (one of the signs of early optic neuritis). The doctor noted that

Plaintiff had symptoms of blepharospasm and discomfort of the upper eyelid. The doctor also

noted that Plaintiff had a pineal cyst which could be related to the photosensitivity. Plaintiff’s

visual acuity with contact lenses was 20/25. Plaintiff was prescribed special tinted eyeglasses in

order to combat her photosensitivity. R. 249 - 250.

On May 1, 2003, Dr. Mitchell examined Plaintiff, noting new left hip pain, aching about

Case 1:04-cv-00239-SJM-SPB Document 10 Filed 08/31/05 Page 6 of 13
9

 Drooping of the upper eyelid.

7

the knees, occasional ptosis9, sleep problems, including jerkiness in her legs, grumpy mood and

fatigue. Dr. Mitchell indicated that Plaintiff had decreased motor strength and difficulty with

tandem walking. R. 271.

On May 5, 2003, a state agency physician completed a Physical Residual Functional

Capacity Assessment about Plaintiff after examining her medical records. The physician

concluded that Plaintiff could lift/carry twenty pounds occasionally; lift/carry ten pounds

frequently; stand/walk about two hours in an eight-hour workday; sit about six hours in an eight

hour workday, and push/pull on an unlimited basis. R. 86.

On May 12, 2003, Plaintiff was examined by Dr. Mitchell. Plaintiff complained of

lightheadedness, increased facial numbness, hip pain, lower back pain and onset and terminal

insomnia. Plaintiff’s medications were adjusted by Dr. Mitchell. R 267. 

On October 10, 2003, Plaintiff presented to Forrest Henry, D.O. for reevaluation of her

multiple sclerosis symptoms as well as her other medical problems (history of SVT, chronic

sinusitis, and bilateral wrist pain). R. 305. On ocotber 24, 2003, Dr. Henry evaluated Plaintiff,

changed his multiple sclerosis medication to Capaxone and ordered further testing. R. 329.

On November 24, 2003, Plaintiff was reevaluated by Dr. Henry, who assessed her with

multiple sclerosis; decreased sensation in her right foot; possible carpal tunnel syndrome; hot

flashes; mood swings; and obesity. R. 328. Dr. Henry ordered testing of Plaintiff’s hand and

foot and adjusted her medications.

On December 15, 2003, Plaintiff was examined by Dr. John Wagner, a podiatrist. Dr.

Wagner diagnosed Plaintiff with pain in the dorsal aspect of her right foot and lower leg,

consistent with a sympathetic pain disorder. Dr. Wagner referred Plaintiff to Dr. Freenock. R.

307.

On December 16, 2003, Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Dappert, a neurologist, who noted

multiple areas of decreased pinprick (illustrating loss of sensation), trace weakness in the right

infraspinatus and heel cord. R. 324 - 325. 

Case 1:04-cv-00239-SJM-SPB Document 10 Filed 08/31/05 Page 7 of 13
10 Reflex sympathetic dystrophy syndrome, also known as complex regional pain

syndrome, is a rare disorder of the sympathetic nervous system that is characterized by chronic,

severe pain. The sympathetic nervous system is that part of the autonomic nervous system that

regulates involuntary functions of the body such as increasing heart rate, constricting blood

vessels, and increasing blood pressure. Excessive or abnormal response of portions of the

sympathetic nervous stems are thought to be responsible for the severe pain associated with this

disorder. 

8

In December 2003, Plaintiff underwent EMG testing by Thomas Freenock, M.D. The

lower extremity testing revealed normal results and the upper extremity testing showed mild

carpal tunnel syndrome in the right hand. R. 319. 

On December 23, 2003, Plaintiff presented to Dr. Freenock complaining of burning,

swelling and pain in the right foot with discoloration and decrease in temperature. Dr. Freenock

concluded that Plaintiff had evidence of a complex regional pain syndrome or RSD (reflex

sympathetic dystrophy10) and that Plaintiff might be a candidate for a pain management

consultation. R. 316. 

On January 1, 2004, Plaintiff was seen in the Emergency Room for racing heart beat. R.

331.

In a letter dated January 5, 2004, and unaccompanied by any medical records, Dr. Henry

summarized Plaintiff’s medical condition and opined that:

Amanda Schiberl is a patient of mine with multiple health problems including

multiple sclerosis, right sided carpal tunnel syndrome, obesity, depression,

history of SVT and chronic recurrent sinusitis. Her multiple sclerosis is by far

her worst problem with ocular involvement, giving her blurred and double vision,

muscular weakness, pain and difficulty ambulating. Her other health problems

magnify these problems. Her multiple sclerosis is in exacerbation and we are

consulting with neurology to try to get a handle on it. There is no way with her

current symptoms that Amanda could hold any meaningful employment and as

aggressive as her multiple sclerosis is, her prognosis for the future is poor.

R. 323.

On February 9, 2004, Plaintiff was evaluated by Dr. Doris Cope, director of the Pain

Medicine Department at UPMC. Dr. Cope noted increased pain, burning sensation,

Case 1:04-cv-00239-SJM-SPB Document 10 Filed 08/31/05 Page 8 of 13
11 An unpleasant abnormal sensation.

12 Condition in which ordinarily nonpainful stimuli evoke pain. 

13 Redness of the skin produced by congestion of the capillaries. 

9

dysesthesia11, allodynia12, along with swelling, and color and temperature change. Plaintiff

indicated that she was beginning to experience some of these same symptoms in her left foot,

but not to the same extent. Dr. Cope listed Plaintiff’s daily medications as: Copaxone, Effexor,

Etodolac, Metprolol, Mirepex, Naproxen, Synthroid, Provigil, Hydrocodone, and Ibuprofen. Dr.

Cope’s impression was right lower extremity pain, sympathetic versus complex region pain

syndrome. R. 346 - 350. Plaintiff underwent several lumbar sympathetic nerve blocks. 

On February 17, 2004, Dr. Cope examined Plaintiff who reported brief improvement of

pain. Dr. Cope noted pain allodynia of the right foot and now the left foot. The doctor noted

erythema13 and allodynia of both feet and assessed Plaintiff with complex regional pain

syndrome of the right extremity and possibly of the left extremity. R. 341 - 343.

D. The Administrative Law Judge’s Decision

A disability hearing was conducted on March 3, 2003. Plaintiff and a vocational expert

testified at this hearing. R. 364. Several medical reports were submitted to the ALJ following

the disability hearing.

On May 6, 2004, the ALJ issued his decision. The ALJ made the following findings

which are listed verbatim from his decision:

1. The claimant meets the non-disability requirements for a period of

disability and disability insurance benefits set forth in § 216(i) of the Act

and is insured for benefits through the date of this decision.

2. The clamant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the

alleged onset of disability.

3. The claimant’s multiple sclerosis, supraventricular tachycardia, and

degenerative disc disease are “severe” impairments, based upon the

requirements at 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 and 416.920.

4. These medically-determinable impairments do not meet or medically

equal the criteria of an impairment listed in Appendix 1, Subpart P, part

Case 1:04-cv-00239-SJM-SPB Document 10 Filed 08/31/05 Page 9 of 13
10

404, 20 C.F.R.

5. The claimant’s allegations regarding her limitations are not totally

credible for the reasons set forth in the body of the decision.

6. The claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform work that

does not require: exertion above the sedentary level; or any climbing; or

more than occasional balancing, stooping, kneeling, crouching, or

crawling; or exposure to hazards, such as heights and dangerous

machinery. 

7. The claimant in unable to perform any of her past relevant work.

8. The claimant is a “younger individual age 18 - 44.”

9. The claimant has a high-school education.

10. The claimant has no transferable skills from any past relevant work.

11. The claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform a significant

range of sedentary work.

12. Although the claimant’s exertional limitations do not allow her to perform

the full range of sedentary work, using medical-vocational rule 201.28 as

a framework for decision-making, there are a significant number of jobs

in the national economy that she could perform. Examples of such jobs

include work as a cashier, a clerk, a packager, and a surveillance system

monitor.

13. The claimant was not under a disability, as defined in the Act, at any time

through the date of this decision.

R. 19 - 20 (internal citations omitted).

E. Standards of Review

The Social Security Act provides limited judicial review of a final decision of the

Commissioner (effectively that of the ALJ where, as in this case, the Appeals Council has

denied the applicant’s request for review). In reviewing the Commissioner’s decision, this court

may not decide facts anew, reweigh the evidence, or substitute this court’s judgment for that of

the Commissioner or, by extension, the ALJ. See Herron v. Shalala, 913 F.3d 329, 333 (7th Cir.

1994). Rather, this court must affirm a decision if it is supported by substantial evidence and

the ALJ has made no error of law. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Hartranft v. Apfel, 181 F.3d 358, 360

(3d Cir. 1999). Substantial evidence is “ ‘such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might

accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’ ” Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 564-65

Case 1:04-cv-00239-SJM-SPB Document 10 Filed 08/31/05 Page 10 of 13
11

(1988) quoting Consolidated Edison v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938). See also Jones v.

Barnhart, 364 F.3d 501, 503 (3d Cir. 2004). Plaintiff contends that the ALJ’s decision is not

supported by substantial evidence. 

A disability is defined under the Act as the “inability to engage in any substantial gainful

activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment . . . which has

lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.” 42 U.S.C.

§ 423(d)(1)(A) (Supp. 2002); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1505(a) (2002). A claimant is unable to engage in

substantial gainful activity when “his physical or mental impairment or impairments are of such

severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work, but cannot, considering his age,

education and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which

exists in the national economy[.]” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A).

The Commissioner must perform a five-step sequential evaluation process to make

disability determinations under the regulations. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920. If the claimant fails to

meet the requirements at any step in the process, the Commissioner may conclude that the

claimant is not disabled under the Act. The ALJ must determine, in order: (1) whether the

claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) if not, whether the claimant has

a severe impairment; (3) if so, whether the claimant’s severe impairment meets or equals the

criteria of an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1; (4) if not, whether the

claimant’s impairment prevents him from performing his past relevant work; and (5) if so,

whether the claimant can perform any other work which exists in the national economy in light

of his age, education, work experience and residual functional capacity. See 20 C.F.R. §§

404.1520, 416.920; Sykes v. Apfel, 228 F.3d 259, 262-63 (3d Cir. 2000). 

In this case, the ALJ evaluated the case under these guidelines and determined, at step

five, that Plaintiff Schiberl could perform work in the national economy. R. 20. Specifically,

the ALJ concluded that: (1) Plaintiff was not currently employed in substantial gainful activity;

(2) that she has an impairment or a combination of impairments considered “severe” pursuant to

the requirements of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c) and 416.920(b); (3) that these impairments did not

meet the criteria for listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1; (4) that

Case 1:04-cv-00239-SJM-SPB Document 10 Filed 08/31/05 Page 11 of 13
12

Plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity to perform a significant range of sedentary

work; and (5) that there were other jobs in the national economy that Plaintiff could perform. R.

15 - 19. 

Plaintiff has the burden of establishing that he is disabled under the Act. See 20 C.F.R.

§§ 404.1512, 416.912.

F. Discussion

Plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to properly analyze the uncontroverted medical

records. Specifically, Plaintiff argues, among other errors, that the ALJ did not factor in

Plaintiff’s complex regional pain syndrome or reflex sympathetic dystrophy of the lower

extremities. Defendant does not advance an argument in opposition to this point.

 In determining a disability claim, the ALJ is required by regulation to “analyze the

cumulative effect of all the claimant’s impairments in determining whether she is capable of

performing work and is not disabled.” Plummer v. Apfel, 186 F.3d 422, 428 (3d Cir. 1999)

citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1523. An ALJ must explain reasons for rejecting uncontradicted medical

evidence. Schaaf v. Matthews, 574 F.2d 157 (3d Cir. 1978). Remand is appropriate in cases

where the ALJ has failed to fully analyze all the medical evidence (Blood v. Barnhart, 80

Fed.Appx. 773 (3d Cir. 2003)) or to offer a clear explanation as to why medical evidence was

rejected (Altman v. Commissioner of Social Security, 124 Fed.Appx. 748 (3d Cir. 2005)).

In this case, the ALJ has not made any reference to the medical records and diagnosis of

complex regional pain syndrome of the right extremity and possibly of the left extremity by Dr.

Cope. These records were submitted after the disability hearing but before the record closed

(see R. 4), were available to the ALJ in the record, yet this diagnosis is not discussed in the

ALJ’s finding. Therefore, remand is appropriate.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the Motion for Summary Judgment

Case 1:04-cv-00239-SJM-SPB Document 10 Filed 08/31/05 Page 12 of 13
13

filed by the Plaintiff [Document # 6] be granted. It is further recommended that the Motion for

Summary Judgment filed by the Defendant [Document # 8] be denied. This matter should be

remanded to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings.

In accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C), and Local

Rule 72.1.4 B, the parties are allowed ten (10) days from the date of service to file written

objections to this report. Any party opposing the objections shall have seven (7) days from the

date of service of objections to respond thereto. Failure to timely file objections may constitute a

waiver of any appellate rights.

S/ Susan Paradise Baxter 

SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER

Chief United States Magistrate Judge

Dated: August 31, 2005

Case 1:04-cv-00239-SJM-SPB Document 10 Filed 08/31/05 Page 13 of 13