Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Hatchett v. Saul, 8:19-cv-196-AEP. (2019)

Court: District Court, M.D. Florida Number: infdco20190920840 Visitors: 11
Filed: Sep. 19, 2019
Latest Update: Sep. 19, 2019
Summary: ORDER ANTHONY E. PORCELLI , Magistrate Judge . This cause comes before the Court upon the Commissioner's Motion for Entry of Judgment with Remand (Doc. 24). 1 The Commissioner contends that remand is appropriate for the following reasons: Upon remand, the agency will re-evaluate Plaintiff's mental impairment in accordance with the special technique described in 20 C.F.R. 404.1520a; further evaluate Plaintiff's residual functional capacity; and, if necessary, obtain vocational expert te
More

ORDER

This cause comes before the Court upon the Commissioner's Motion for Entry of Judgment with Remand (Doc. 24).1 The Commissioner contends that remand is appropriate for the following reasons:

Upon remand, the agency will re-evaluate Plaintiff's mental impairment in accordance with the special technique described in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520a; further evaluate Plaintiff's residual functional capacity; and, if necessary, obtain vocational expert testimony.

(Doc. 24). Plaintiff does not object to the relief requested. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the Commissioner's motion, it is hereby

ORDERED:

1. The Commissioner's Motion for Entry of Judgment with Remand (Doc. 24) is GRANTED.

2. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment for Plaintiff with instructions that the Commissioner's decision is REVERSED under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and the case is REMANDED for further administrative proceedings consistent with the reasons stated in the Commissioner's motion.

3. The Clerk is directed to close the case.

DONE AND ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. The parties consented to proceed before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (Doc. 12).
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