HITCHCOCK v. COLVIN, 2:13-CV-00974-JCC-BAT. (2014)
Court: District Court, D. Washington
Number: infdco20140320e46
Visitors: 17
Filed: Mar. 14, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 14, 2014
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA, Magistrate Judge. Melyssa J. Hitchcock brought an action seeking review of the denial of her application for disability benefits. Dkt. 1. The parties have filed a stipulated motion to reverse and remand the case, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g), for further administrative proceedings. Dkt. 19. On remand, for the period prior to plaintiff's date last insured for Title II benefits, the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") should: (1) Con
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA, Magistrate Judge. Melyssa J. Hitchcock brought an action seeking review of the denial of her application for disability benefits. Dkt. 1. The parties have filed a stipulated motion to reverse and remand the case, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g), for further administrative proceedings. Dkt. 19. On remand, for the period prior to plaintiff's date last insured for Title II benefits, the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") should: (1) Cons..
More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA, Magistrate Judge.
Melyssa J. Hitchcock brought an action seeking review of the denial of her application for disability benefits. Dkt. 1. The parties have filed a stipulated motion to reverse and remand the case, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for further administrative proceedings. Dkt. 19.
On remand, for the period prior to plaintiff's date last insured for Title II benefits, the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") should:
(1) Consider any new and material medical evidence relevant to the period at issue;
(2) Reevaluate the medical evidence, including the medical opinion evidence from Dana Shaw, M.D., and Nicola Walker, M.D.; if necessary, obtain clarification of the medical opinions and if any portion of the opinion evidence is discounted, the ALJ will state the reasons for discounting the opinion;
(3) Reevaluate the claimant's credibility in accordance with Social Security Ruling 96-7p;
(4) Reevaluate the lay evidence;
(5) Reevaluate the maximum residual functional capacity ("RFC") and provide appropriate rationale with specific reference to evidence of record in support of the assessed limitations; and
(6) If necessary, obtain supplemental vocational expert testimony regarding the plaintiff's ability to perform past relevant work or, alternatively, work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy and ensure that the vocational expert testimony does not conflict with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles in accordance with Social Security Ruling 00-4p.
The parties stipulate that plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorney fees, expenses, and costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412, upon proper request to this Court.
The Court has reviewed the motion and record, and recommends the case be REVERSED and REMANDED for further administrative proceedings pursuant to the terms of the parties' stipulated motion. As the parties stipulate to remand, the Court recommends if this recommendation is adopted, that it be approved immediately. A proposed order accompanies this Report and Recommendation. The Clerk shall note the matter for March 14, 2014, as ready for the District Judge's review.
Source: Leagle
