THOMAS v. ASTRUE, 11-0143-CV-W-FJG-SSA. (2012)
Court: District Court, W.D. Missouri
Number: infdco20120210a47
Visitors: 8
Filed: Feb. 09, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 09, 2012
Summary: ORDER FERNANDO J. GAITAN, Jr., Chief District Judge. Currently pending before this Court is defendant's Motion to Remand (Doc. # 10). Agency counsel states that after review of the above referenced case, agency counsel requested the Appeals Council to reconsider the Commissioner's decision. Upon review, the Appeals Council determined that remand was appropriate. Agency counsel states that upon remand the Appeals Council will remand this case to the ALJ who will be directed to make appropriat
Summary: ORDER FERNANDO J. GAITAN, Jr., Chief District Judge. Currently pending before this Court is defendant's Motion to Remand (Doc. # 10). Agency counsel states that after review of the above referenced case, agency counsel requested the Appeals Council to reconsider the Commissioner's decision. Upon review, the Appeals Council determined that remand was appropriate. Agency counsel states that upon remand the Appeals Council will remand this case to the ALJ who will be directed to make appropriate..
More
ORDER
FERNANDO J. GAITAN, Jr., Chief District Judge.
Currently pending before this Court is defendant's Motion to Remand (Doc. # 10).
Agency counsel states that after review of the above referenced case, agency counsel requested the Appeals Council to reconsider the Commissioner's decision. Upon review, the Appeals Council determined that remand was appropriate. Agency counsel states that upon remand the Appeals Council will remand this case to the ALJ who will be directed to make appropriate findings regarding all of plaintiff's medically determinable impairments and her residual functional capacity, specifically explaining each finding with references to the evidence in the record. Additionally, the ALJ will obtain supplemental evidence from a vocational expert regarding the effects of plaintiff's limitations on the job base. The ALJ will also formulate appropriate hypothetical questions and ask the vocational expert to provide examples of jobs existing in significant numbers in the economy which plaintiff could perform. The vocational expert should also identify and resolve any conflicts between the vocational evidence and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles.
Therefore, this Court hereby ORDERS that the Administrative Law Judge's decision is REVERSED and this case is REMANDED to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
Source: Leagle
