GRAY v. ASTRUE, C11-2085-JCC-BAT. (2012)
Court: District Court, D. Washington
Number: infdco20120523e87
Visitors: 16
Filed: May 09, 2012
Latest Update: May 09, 2012
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA, Magistrate Judge. Arsenio J. Gray seeks review of the denial of his Supplemental Security Income and Disability Insurance Benefits applications. Dkt. 3. The parties stipulate the case should be REVERSED and REMANDED for further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g). Dkt. 18. The parties stipulate that on remand, the ALJ will hold a de novo hearing and plaintiff may raise any issue. The parties further stipu
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA, Magistrate Judge. Arsenio J. Gray seeks review of the denial of his Supplemental Security Income and Disability Insurance Benefits applications. Dkt. 3. The parties stipulate the case should be REVERSED and REMANDED for further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g). Dkt. 18. The parties stipulate that on remand, the ALJ will hold a de novo hearing and plaintiff may raise any issue. The parties further stipul..
More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA, Magistrate Judge.
Arsenio J. Gray seeks review of the denial of his Supplemental Security Income and Disability Insurance Benefits applications. Dkt. 3. The parties stipulate the case should be REVERSED and REMANDED for further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Dkt. 18. The parties stipulate that on remand, the ALJ will hold a de novo hearing and plaintiff may raise any issue. The parties further stipulate the ALJ will:
(1) Update the treatment evidence regarding the claimant's medical condition;
(2) Reevaluate the severity of all medically determinable mental impairments under the special technique and further evaluate whether the claimant meets or equals a listed impairment;
(3) Reevaluate and explain the reasons for the weight given to opinion evidence, including the medical source opinions of David Sandvik, M.D.; Kerry T. Bartlett, Ph.D.; T. Christopher Portman, Ph.D.; and state agency non-examining consultative physicians; and evidence from "other source" Alyson Batchelder-Bestle;
(4) Reassess plaintiff's credibility and residual functional capacity in light of the updated record, citing specific evidence in support of the assessed limitations;
(5) Reevaluate whether plaintiff could perform past relevant work; and
(6) Continue with the sequential evaluation process, obtaining vocational expert testimony if warranted by the expanded record.
Upon proper presentation, this Court will consider plaintiff's application for costs and attorney fees under 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) and 42 U.S.C. § 406(b).
Because the parties have stipulated that the case be remanded as set forth above, the Court recommends that United States District Judge John C. Coughenour immediately approve this Report and Recommendation and order the case REVERSED and REMANDED for further administrative proceedings. A proposed order accompanies this Report and Recommendation.
Source: Leagle
