You're viewing Docket Item 21 from the case TOMASSI v. ASTRUE. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 2:12-cv-01354-MRH-MPK Document 21 Filed 09/20/13 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLV ANIA


TIFF ANY TOMASSI,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROL YN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

Judge Mark R. Hornak

)

)
)
)
)
) Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly
)
)
)
)

2: 12-cv-01354

ECF Nos. 11 & 16

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Plaintiff Tiffany Tomassi commenced this action by filing a Motion for Leave to Proceed

In Forma Pauperis on September 19, 2012. That motion was granted and the Clerk of Court

docketed the Complaint (ECF No.3) on September 21, 2012. The case was referred to United

States Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly for pretrial proceedings in accordance with the

Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Local Rules of Court 72.C and 72.D.

The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (ECF. No. 19), filed on August 21,

2013, recommended that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF. No. 16) be denied,

and that Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF. No. 11) be granted to the extent

remand for reconsideration was sought and denied to the extent reversal and an immediate award

of benefits was sought, and that the decision of the Commissioner be vacated and the case

remanded for further consideration. Service was made on all counsel of record. The parties were

informed that in accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C),

and Rule 72.D.2 of the Local Rules of Court, that they had fourteen (14) days to file any

objections. The Defendant filed timely Objections to the Report and Recommendation (ECF No.

20) on September 9,2013.

Case 2:12-cv-01354-MRH-MPK Document 21 Filed 09/20/13 Page 2 of 2

After de novo review of the pleadings and documents in the case, together with the

Report and Recommendation, and Objections thereto, the following order is entered:

AND NOW, thisaO~y of September, 2013,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Tiffany Tomassi's Motion for Summary

Judgment (ECF. No. 11) is granted to the extent it seeks remand for reconsideration and is

otherwise denied, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 16) is denied, the

decision of the Commissioner is vacated and the matter is remanded for reconsideration

consistent with this Order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate

Judge Kelly (ECF No. 19), dated August 21, 2013, is adopted as the Opinion of the Court. 1

cc: All counsel of record

Mark R. Hornak
United States District Judge

I The Commissioner appears to construe the observation that the AU "need not" take testimony on remand, R&R at
26, as meaning that the AU "must not." Thomas v. Comm'r. ofSoc. Sec., 625 FJd 798, 800-0 I, n.2 (3d Cir. 2010)
does not mean that, at all. Here, given the nature of the matters to be considered on remand, opening the record for
additional testimony is a well-advised course in order to allow for "full development" of the record. We leave it to
the Commissioner on remand to first consider whether her obligation to "fully develop" the record on remand can be
accomplished only via submissions. !d. at 801, n.2.

2