Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Patricia S. v. Commissioner of Social Security, 3:19-CV-05065-BAT. (2019)

Court: District Court, D. Washington Number: infdco20190531f14 Visitors: 3
Filed: May 30, 2019
Latest Update: May 30, 2019
Summary: ORDER BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA , Chief Magistrate Judge . Based on the stipulation of the parties, it is hereby ORDERED that the above-captioned case be reversed and remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g) for further administrative proceedings, including, but not limited to, the following actions: the administrative law judge (the ALJ) will further consider the opinions of Consultative Examiner Jennifer A. Irwin, M.D. (Tr. 345-348), and State Agency Reviewing Psychologists Diane
More

ORDER

Based on the stipulation of the parties, it is hereby ORDERED that the above-captioned case be reversed and remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings, including, but not limited to, the following actions: the administrative law judge (the ALJ) will further consider the opinions of Consultative Examiner Jennifer A. Irwin, M.D. (Tr. 345-348), and State Agency Reviewing Psychologists Diane Fligstein, Ph.D. (Tr. 71-73), and Eugene Kester, M.D. (Tr. 86-87), and explain the weight given to each opinion; the ALJ will recontact Dr. Irwin to obtain clarification regarding the maximum amount of time, during an 8 hours a day, for 5 days a week work schedule, that Plaintiff would be able to perform each of the work-related activities noted in the functional assessment/medical source statement of Dr. Irwin's consultative examination report (Tr. 348); the ALJ will further consider Plaintiff's subjective complaints; in light of the above findings, the ALJ will further assess Plaintiff's residual functional capacity and provide rationale with specific references to evidence of record in support of assessed limitations; and if the sequential evaluation process proceeds to step four, the ALJ will further consider, with the assistance of additional vocational expert testimony, Plaintiff's ability to perform past relevant work and, if necessary, her ability to perform other work in the national economy at step five.

This case is reversed and remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer