to the Commissioner for a more complete evaluation of the evidence relating to the limitation in attending and completing tasks and, after completing this evaluation, whether L.B. is entitled to disability benefits. 1 . We amend our June 14, 2016 Memorandum (ECF Doc. No. 27) only to correct a typographical error in the second paragraph of our Analysis consistent with the remainder of our Memorandum and Order. 2 . Burnett v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 220 F.3d 112, 118 (3d Cir.2000). 3 . Hartranft v. Apfel, 181 F.3d 358; 360 (3d Cir.1999) (quoting Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 564-65, 108 S.Ct. 2541, 101 L.Ed.2d 490 (1988)). 4 . Monsour Med. Ctr. v. Heckler, 806 F.2d 1185, 1190 (3d Cir.1986). 5 . Id. at 1190-91; see also Gilmore v. Barnhart, 356 F.Supp.2d 509, 511 (E.D.Pa.2005) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Schwartz v. Halter, 134 F.Supp.2d
holding the courts scope of review is  limited to determining whether the commissioner applied the correct legal standards and whether the record as a whole contains substantial evidence to support the commissioners findings of fact  holding that where the board had already made the necessary factual evaluation underlying the legal standard to be applied it then becomes the courts responsibility to conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether the boards findings were supported by substantial evidence holding that a courts role in reviewing an administrative agency decision is limited to determining if there is substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the agencys findings and conclusions and to determine if the administrative decision is premised upon an erroneous conclusion of law holding that a reviewing courts task is to determine whether there was substantial evidence before the administrative agency on the record as a whole to support the agencys conclusions holding that the courts review is limited to ascertaining whether there is clear error on the face of the record