STONE v. COLVIN, C13-5137-JLR-JPD. (2013)
Court: District Court, D. Washington
Number: infdco20130729b49
Visitors: 3
Filed: Jul. 23, 2013
Latest Update: Jul. 23, 2013
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION JAMES P. DONOHUE, Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff brought this action to seek judicial review of the denial of her application for disability benefits by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. Dkt. 1. The parties have stipulated that this case should be reversed and remanded for further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g). Dkt. 14. Based on the stipulation of the parties, the Court recommends that this case be REVER
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION JAMES P. DONOHUE, Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff brought this action to seek judicial review of the denial of her application for disability benefits by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. Dkt. 1. The parties have stipulated that this case should be reversed and remanded for further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g). Dkt. 14. Based on the stipulation of the parties, the Court recommends that this case be REVERS..
More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
JAMES P. DONOHUE, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff brought this action to seek judicial review of the denial of her application for disability benefits by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. Dkt. 1. The parties have stipulated that this case should be reversed and remanded for further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Dkt. 14.
Based on the stipulation of the parties, the Court recommends that this case be REVERSED and REMANDED for further administrative proceedings, including a de novo hearing. On remand, the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") shall: 1) further evaluate plaintiff's mental impairments; 2) further evaluate Drs. C. Hart and J. Hart's opinions and give specific reasons for the weight assigned as set forth in Social Security Ruling 96-6p; 3) further consider plaintiff's residual functional capacity in accordance with Social Security Ruling 96-8p; and 4) as warranted, obtain vocational expert evidence to clarify the effect of the assessed limitations on plaintiff's occupational base.
Upon proper application, the Court will consider whether reasonable attorney's fees and costs should be awarded pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). A proposed order accompanies this Report and Recommendation.
Source: Leagle
