LUTZ v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 2:13-cv-738-FtM-CM. (2014)
Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
Number: infdco20140806869
Visitors: 4
Filed: Aug. 05, 2014
Latest Update: Aug. 05, 2014
Summary: ORDER CAROL MIRANDO, Magistrate Judge. Before the Court is Defendant's Unopposed Motion for Entry of Judgment with Remand (Doc. 19), filed on August 4, 2014. Defendant requests that the Court remand this case to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings before the Administrative Law Judge. Pursuant to Title 42, United States Code, Section 405(g), the Court may reverse the decision of the Commissioner with or without remanding the case for a rehearing. Upon due consideration, Def
Summary: ORDER CAROL MIRANDO, Magistrate Judge. Before the Court is Defendant's Unopposed Motion for Entry of Judgment with Remand (Doc. 19), filed on August 4, 2014. Defendant requests that the Court remand this case to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings before the Administrative Law Judge. Pursuant to Title 42, United States Code, Section 405(g), the Court may reverse the decision of the Commissioner with or without remanding the case for a rehearing. Upon due consideration, Defe..
More
ORDER
CAROL MIRANDO, Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court is Defendant's Unopposed Motion for Entry of Judgment with Remand (Doc. 19), filed on August 4, 2014. Defendant requests that the Court remand this case to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings before the Administrative Law Judge. Pursuant to Title 42, United States Code, Section 405(g), the Court may reverse the decision of the Commissioner with or without remanding the case for a rehearing. Upon due consideration, Defendant's motion is due to be granted.
ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1. Defendant's Unopposed Motion for Entry of Judgment with Remand (Doc. 19) is GRANTED. The decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED and this action is REMANDED under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to the Commissioner for the Administrative Law Judge to:
a. Further consider Plaintiff's maximum residual functional capacity with specific reference to the opinion evidence of record;
b. Further evaluate Plaintiff's ability to perform the physical demands of her past relevant work;
c. Obtain evidence from a vocational expert regarding Plaintiff's ability to perform her past relevant work as actually or generally performed and, if not, proceed to step five of the sequential evaluation process; and
d. Take any other action as deemed necessary.
2. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close the file.
DONE and ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
