WASHINGTON v. COLVIN, 13-5091. (2014)
Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Number: infdco20140916e82
Visitors: 9
Filed: Sep. 15, 2014
Latest Update: Sep. 15, 2014
Summary: ORDER R. BARCLAY SURRICK, District Judge. AND NOW, this 15 th day of, September 2014, upon consideration of Plaintiff's request far review, Defendant' response and Plaintiff's reply brief, and after review of the Report and Recommendation of Carol Sandra Moore Wells, Chief United States Magistrate Judge, and the entire record, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED; 2 This matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner of Social Security Administr
Summary: ORDER R. BARCLAY SURRICK, District Judge. AND NOW, this 15 th day of, September 2014, upon consideration of Plaintiff's request far review, Defendant' response and Plaintiff's reply brief, and after review of the Report and Recommendation of Carol Sandra Moore Wells, Chief United States Magistrate Judge, and the entire record, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED; 2 This matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner of Social Security Administra..
More
ORDER
R. BARCLAY SURRICK, District Judge.
AND NOW, this 15th day of, September 2014, upon consideration of Plaintiff's request far review, Defendant' response and Plaintiff's reply brief, and after review of the Report and Recommendation of Carol Sandra Moore Wells, Chief United States Magistrate Judge, and the entire record, it is ORDERED as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED;
2 This matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner of Social Security Administration to allow the Administrative Law Judge (AU) to conduct additional proceedings consistent with the Report and Recommendation. On remand, the ALJ shall: (a) reassess Drs. Chintana Suanlarm and Emil Sfedu's opinions regarding Plaintiff's handling and environmental restrictions; (b) expressly consider the limiting effects of Plaintiff's obesity at steps three, four and five of the sequential evaluation process; (c) reconsider Plaintiff's residual functional capacity, considering all of her physical and mental limitations; and (d) pose hypothetical questions to the vocational expert which take into account all of Plaintiff's credible limitations, including her environmental and handling restrictions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
