BARANSKI v. COLVIN, 1:14 cv 607. (2014)
Court: District Court, N.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20141020824
Visitors: 16
Filed: Oct. 17, 2014
Latest Update: Oct. 17, 2014
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER SARA LIOI, District Judge. Before the Court is a joint motion filed by the parties to remand this case to the Commissioner of Social Security for further proceedings (Doc. No. 17). Plaintiff and defendant Acting Commissioner of Social Security request that the Commissioner's decision denying plaintiff's application for disability insurance benefits be reversed pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g), and that the on remand: [T]he ALJ will offer Plaintiff a new hearing;
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER SARA LIOI, District Judge. Before the Court is a joint motion filed by the parties to remand this case to the Commissioner of Social Security for further proceedings (Doc. No. 17). Plaintiff and defendant Acting Commissioner of Social Security request that the Commissioner's decision denying plaintiff's application for disability insurance benefits be reversed pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g), and that the on remand: [T]he ALJ will offer Plaintiff a new hearing; ..
More
OPINION AND ORDER
SARA LIOI, District Judge.
Before the Court is a joint motion filed by the parties to remand this case to the Commissioner of Social Security for further proceedings (Doc. No. 17). Plaintiff and defendant Acting Commissioner of Social Security request that the Commissioner's decision denying plaintiff's application for disability insurance benefits be reversed pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g), and that the on remand:
[T]he ALJ will offer Plaintiff a new hearing; further evaluate her physical and mental impairments in accordance with the special technique described in 20 CFR §§ 404.1520a and 416.920a, documenting application of the technique in the decision by providing specific findings and appropriate rationale for each of the functional areas described in 20 CFR §§ 404.1520a(c) and 416.920a(c); and give further consideration to Plaintiff's maximum residual functional capacity during the entire period at issue, with specific references to evidence of record in support of assessed limitations; and, in so doing, evaluate the medical opinions in accordance with the provisions of 20 CFR §§ 404.1527(e) and 416.927(e) and Social Security Rulings 96-6p and 96-2p and explain the weight given to such opinion evidence.
(Doc. No. 17.)
Upon consideration, the parties' joint motion is GRANTED. The Commissioner's decision is reversed and this matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the relief requested in the parties' joint motion, as set forth above. A Judgment Entry will be separately published.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
