Kumbalek v. Berryhill, 18-cv-177-pp. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
Number: infdco20180723c68
Visitors: 14
Filed: Jul. 20, 2018
Latest Update: Jul. 20, 2018
Summary: ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION FOR REMAND (DKT. NO.17), AND REMANDING CASE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS UNDER SENTENCE FOUR OF 42. U.S.C. 405(g) PAMELA PEPPER , District Judge . On July 20, 2018, the parties filed a stipulation for remand for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g). Dkt. No. 17. The court APPROVES the stipulation for remand, and ORDERS that: The case is REMANDED to the Commissioner of Social Security. On judicial remand, the Commissioner will ins
Summary: ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION FOR REMAND (DKT. NO.17), AND REMANDING CASE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS UNDER SENTENCE FOUR OF 42. U.S.C. 405(g) PAMELA PEPPER , District Judge . On July 20, 2018, the parties filed a stipulation for remand for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g). Dkt. No. 17. The court APPROVES the stipulation for remand, and ORDERS that: The case is REMANDED to the Commissioner of Social Security. On judicial remand, the Commissioner will inst..
More
ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION FOR REMAND (DKT. NO.17), AND REMANDING CASE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS UNDER SENTENCE FOUR OF 42. U.S.C. § 405(g)
PAMELA PEPPER, District Judge.
On July 20, 2018, the parties filed a stipulation for remand for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. §405(g). Dkt. No. 17. The court APPROVES the stipulation for remand, and ORDERS that:
The case is REMANDED to the Commissioner of Social Security. On judicial remand, the Commissioner will instruct the administrative law judge to inter alia explain how he considered the borderline age situation, state whether he is applying the higher age category or the chronological age, and note the specific factor(s) he considered; include SSR 96-8p's requisite narrative discussion regarding how the claimant's moderate limitation in concentration, persistence, or pace affects her ability to work (assuming the ALJ again finds said limitation); and issue a de novo decision.
Source: Leagle
