The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Jacqueline Chooljian United States Magistrate Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF REMAND
On July 1, 2008, Edward A. Fleming ("plaintiff") filed a Complaint seeking review of the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of plaintiff's application for benefits. The parties have filed a consent to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the parties' cross motions for summary judgment, respectively ("Plaintiff's Motion") and ("Defendant's Motion"). The Court has taken both motions under submission without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15; July 2, 2008 Case Management Order ¶ 5.
Based on the record as a whole and the applicable law, the decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED AND REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this Memorandum and Opinion and Order of Remand because the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") failed adequately to address the medical opinion evidence.
II. BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION
On May 29, 2003, plaintiff filed an application for Supplemental Security Income benefits. (Administrative Record ("AR") 16, 80-83). Plaintiff asserted that he became disabled on September 23, 1990, due to mental problems and diabetes. (AR 16, 99). The ALJ examined the medical record and heard testimony from plaintiff (who was represented by counsel) on May 10, 2006. (AR 567-77).
On September 23, 2006, the ALJ determined that plaintiff was not disabled through the date of the decision. (AR 26). Specifically, the ALJ found:
(1) plaintiff suffered from the following severe impairment: borderline intellectual functioning (AR 18);
(2) plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled one of the listed impairments (AR 18);
(3) plaintiff could perform unskilled work at all exertional levels (AR 18);
(4) plaintiff had no past relevant work (AR 25);
(5) there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that plaintiff could perform; and
(6) plaintiff's allegations regarding his limitations were not entirely credible (AR 24).
The Appeals Council denied plaintiff's application for review on May ...