Goin v. Berryhill, 3:18-cv-207-HDM-WGC. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20190319d60
Visitors: 13
Filed: Mar. 18, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 18, 2019
Summary: ORDER HOWARD D. McKIBBEN , District Judge . On February 15, 2019, Judge Cobb issued a report and recommendation. He recommends that this Court grant Goin's motion for reversal and remand, deny the Commissioner's cross-motion to affirm, and remand this case for further administrative proceedings, consistent with his report and recommendation. The time to object to the report and recommendation has expired, and the parties have filed no objections. The Court accepts and adopts the report and
Summary: ORDER HOWARD D. McKIBBEN , District Judge . On February 15, 2019, Judge Cobb issued a report and recommendation. He recommends that this Court grant Goin's motion for reversal and remand, deny the Commissioner's cross-motion to affirm, and remand this case for further administrative proceedings, consistent with his report and recommendation. The time to object to the report and recommendation has expired, and the parties have filed no objections. The Court accepts and adopts the report and ..
More
ORDER
HOWARD D. McKIBBEN, District Judge.
On February 15, 2019, Judge Cobb issued a report and recommendation. He recommends that this Court grant Goin's motion for reversal and remand, deny the Commissioner's cross-motion to affirm, and remand this case for further administrative proceedings, consistent with his report and recommendation. The time to object to the report and recommendation has expired, and the parties have filed no objections.
The Court accepts and adopts the report and recommendation. Local Rule IB 3-2(b). Thus, Goin's motion for reversal and remand is granted, the Commissioner's cross-motion to affirm is denied, and this case is remanded for further administrative proceedings. On remand, as set forth in the report and recommendation, the ALJ shall:
• Determine whether Plaintiff met or equaled Listed Impairment 1.04C;
• Determine whether there are legally sufficient reasons for rejecting portions of the opinions of Plaintiff's treating doctors, Drs. DeMordaunt and Rappaport;
• Determine whether there are legally sufficient reasons for rejecting certain of Plaintiff's subjective-symptom statements;
• Determine whether a significant number of jobs would be available with Plaintiff's restriction of having to alternate between sitting and standing for five minutes every hour, including analysis on whether the number of jobs is significant either nationwide or regionally; and
• Resolve the ambiguity between Dr. DeMordaunt's opinion that Plaintiff can bend from the lumbar spine occasionally and Dr. Rappaport's opinion that Plaintiff should avoid bending altogether. And if Dr. Rappaport's opinion is found to be supported by substantial evidence and not contradicted by earlier opinions by others, determine whether an inability to stoop precludes sedentary work.
After making appropriate findings, the ALJ shall issue a new decision on plaintiff's claim of disability.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
