EILRICH v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 2:09-cv-2697 CKD. (2014)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20141017769
Visitors: 3
Filed: Oct. 16, 2014
Latest Update: Oct. 16, 2014
Summary: ORDER CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge. By mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed November 4, 2013, this matter was reversed and remanded. ECF Nos. 37, 39. The appellate court concluded that the ALJ should reconsider, with the benefit of new evidence regarding an exploratory laparoscopy performed on plaintiff in October 2010, 1 whether plaintiff's impairment was "severe" within the meaning of the Social Security regulations prior to the expiration of h
Summary: ORDER CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge. By mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed November 4, 2013, this matter was reversed and remanded. ECF Nos. 37, 39. The appellate court concluded that the ALJ should reconsider, with the benefit of new evidence regarding an exploratory laparoscopy performed on plaintiff in October 2010, 1 whether plaintiff's impairment was "severe" within the meaning of the Social Security regulations prior to the expiration of hi..
More
ORDER
CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge.
By mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed November 4, 2013, this matter was reversed and remanded. ECF Nos. 37, 39. The appellate court concluded that the ALJ should reconsider, with the benefit of new evidence regarding an exploratory laparoscopy performed on plaintiff in October 2010,1 whether plaintiff's impairment was "severe" within the meaning of the Social Security regulations prior to the expiration of his disability coverage in 2002. The matter was accordingly remanded under sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for consideration of the new evidence. Upon remand, a new hearing was held and the ALJ rendered a decision fully favorable to the Commissioner. Plaintiff now appeals that decision. The parties have stipulated that this action be reopened.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendant shall file the administrative transcript within ninety days.
2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve the undersigned's scheduling order in social security cases. Briefing on cross-motions for summary judgment shall proceed in accordance with the scheduling order.
FootNotes
1. The new evidence was submitted in connection with plaintiff's reply on the cross-motions for summary judgment. ECF Nos. 25, 27.
Source: Leagle
