HIRTZINGER v. COLVIN, 3:13cv00351. (2014)
Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20140808d94
Visitors: 3
Filed: Aug. 07, 2014
Latest Update: Aug. 07, 2014
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1 SHARON L. OVINGTON, Chief Magistrate Judge. This case is before the Court upon the parties' Joint Motion For Remand. (Doc. #14). In light of the parties' agreement, the Court finds that an Order entering judgment in Plaintiff's favor and against Defendant, and remanding this matter to the Social Security Administration under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g) for further administrative proceedings, is warranted. On remand, the Appeals Council will remand the matt
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1 SHARON L. OVINGTON, Chief Magistrate Judge. This case is before the Court upon the parties' Joint Motion For Remand. (Doc. #14). In light of the parties' agreement, the Court finds that an Order entering judgment in Plaintiff's favor and against Defendant, and remanding this matter to the Social Security Administration under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g) for further administrative proceedings, is warranted. On remand, the Appeals Council will remand the matte..
More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS1
SHARON L. OVINGTON, Chief Magistrate Judge.
This case is before the Court upon the parties' Joint Motion For Remand. (Doc. #14). In light of the parties' agreement, the Court finds that an Order entering judgment in Plaintiff's favor and against Defendant, and remanding this matter to the Social Security Administration under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. §405(g) for further administrative proceedings, is warranted.
On remand, the Appeals Council will remand the matter to an administrative law judge for a new hearing and a new decision to: (1) evaluate and discuss the opinions of the State agency psychological consultants; (2) reevaluate the opinion of Shelley Lopez, M.S.; (3) further assess Plaintiff's residual functional capacity if necessary; (4) consider all of Plaintiff's impairments in determining what severe impairments Plaintiff may have and in determining Plaintiff's residual functional capacity; and (5) if warranted under the expanded record, obtain supplemental evidence from a vocational expert to clarify the effects of the assessed limitations on the occupational base.
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT:
1. The parties' Joint Motion For Remand (Doc. #14) be GRANTED;
2. The Clerk of Court be directed to enter Judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant reversing Defendant's final decision and remanding this matter to the Social Security Administration pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. §405(g) for further proceedings consistent with an Order adopting this Report and Recommendations; and
3. The case be terminated on the docket of this Court.
FootNotes
1. Attached hereto is a NOTICE to the parties regarding objections to this Report and Recommendations.
Source: Leagle
