EVANS v. ASTRUE, 11-00556-WS-B. (2012)
Court: District Court, S.D. Alabama
Number: infdco20120420799
Visitors: 28
Filed: Apr. 19, 2012
Latest Update: Apr. 19, 2012
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM H. STEELE, Chief District Judge. After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the issues raised, and there having been no objections filed, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and dated March 26, 2012 is hereby ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. Accordingly, for good cause shown, it is ORDERED that Defendant=s unopposed Motion to Remand pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C.
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM H. STEELE, Chief District Judge. After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the issues raised, and there having been no objections filed, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and dated March 26, 2012 is hereby ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. Accordingly, for good cause shown, it is ORDERED that Defendant=s unopposed Motion to Remand pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. ..
More
ORDER
WILLIAM H. STEELE, Chief District Judge.
After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the issues raised, and there having been no objections filed, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and dated March 26, 2012 is hereby ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court.
Accordingly, for good cause shown, it is ORDERED that Defendant=s unopposed Motion to Remand pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (Doc. 23) be and hereby is GRANTED, and that this action is REMANDED to the Social Security Administration pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) so that the Appeals Council can remand the case to an Administrative Law Judge to "further consider the opinions of examining source [] Nina E. Tocci, Ph.D.[,] and non-examining source Guendalina Ravello, Ph.D., and explain the weight given to such opinions; further evaluate Plaintiff's mental impairments . . .; further consider Plaintiff's residual functional capacity; and, if warranted, obtain supplemental evidence from a vocational expert . . . ." (Doc. 23 at 1-2).
This remand, pursuant to sentence four of Section 405(g), makes Plaintiff a prevailing party for purposes of the Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (1993).
Source: Leagle
