UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 19-cv-24454-HUCK/MCALILEY CHRISTINE EGOVILLE, Plaintiff, CLOSED CIVIL ANDREW M. SAUL, CASE Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. □ ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon both Plaintiff and Defendant’s Motions for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 23 and 26, respectively]. The Court referred this case to the Honorable Magistrate Judge McAliley for a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) [ECF No. 10]. On February 3, 2021, Magistrate Judge McAliley issued the R&R recommending that the decision of the Commissioner be reversed and remanded for further development of the record [ECF No. 29]. In so, the R&R also recommended that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 23] be granted and that the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 26] be denied. On February 17, 2021, Defendant filed Objections (“Objections”) [ECF No. 30] to the R&R, to which Plaintiff filed a Response [ECF No. 31]. Defendant “objects to the Magistrate Judge’s finding that an apparent conflict exists between a limitation to simple, routine, and repetitive tasks and the jobs of tube operator and addresser, which are assigned a reasoning level 2 in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT).” (Obj. 2-3). Having reviewed de novo Defendant’s Objections, the R&R, the record, and being duly advised, this Court agrees with Judge McAliley’s R&R and the recommendations therein. As stated in the R&R, this Court does not conclude that an actual conflict exists. (See R&R 16). Instead, the Court agrees with the R&R’s reasoning that for the ALJ’s decision to be fully supported by substantial evidence, the ALJ must fully develop the record, which includes identifying and resolving any apparent conflicts. See Washington v. Commissioner of Social Security,

(11th Cir. 2018); R&R. Thus, the Court ADOPTS the R&R’s findings

of facts and conclusions of law and OVERRULES Defendant’s Objections. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the R&R, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 23] is GRANTED, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 26] is DENIED, and the Commissioner’s decision is REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings in accordance with this Order. The Clerk is directed to close the case. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Miami, Florida on March 12, 2021.

a □□

Paul C. Huck United States District Judge Copies furnished to: Chris M. McAliley, United States Magistrate Judge Counsel of Record