WILBOURN v. COLVIN, 2:13-cv-00367-JPH. (2014)
Court: District Court, D. Washington
Number: infdco20140908c98
Visitors: 28
Filed: Sep. 05, 2014
Latest Update: Sep. 05, 2014
Summary: ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION FOR REMAND JAMES P. HUTTON, Magistrate Judge. BEFORE THE COURT is a stipulated motion for remand pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g). ECF No. 22. Attorney Dana Chris Madsen represents plaintiff (Wilbourn). Special Assistant United States Attorney Thomas M. Elsberry represents defendant (Commissioner). The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. ECF No. 8. After review, the court grants the parties' motion for remand, ECF No. 22,
Summary: ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION FOR REMAND JAMES P. HUTTON, Magistrate Judge. BEFORE THE COURT is a stipulated motion for remand pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g). ECF No. 22. Attorney Dana Chris Madsen represents plaintiff (Wilbourn). Special Assistant United States Attorney Thomas M. Elsberry represents defendant (Commissioner). The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. ECF No. 8. After review, the court grants the parties' motion for remand, ECF No. 22, ..
More
ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION FOR REMAND
JAMES P. HUTTON, Magistrate Judge.
BEFORE THE COURT is a stipulated motion for remand pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). ECF No. 22. Attorney Dana Chris Madsen represents plaintiff (Wilbourn). Special Assistant United States Attorney Thomas M. Elsberry represents defendant (Commissioner). The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. ECF No. 8. After review, the court grants the parties' motion for remand, ECF No. 22, and reverses and remands for further administrative proceedings.
On remand, the ALJ will conduct a de novo hearing, including:
(1) give further consideration to Plaintiff's medically determinable mental impairments at step two, and in doing so fully address the medical opinions in the record and, if necessary, consult a medical expert to determine the nature, severity and limiting effects (if any) of medically determinable impairments;
(2) further evaluate Plaintiff's maximum residual functional capacity in specific functional terms, with specific reference to the opinion evidence of record in support of the assessed limitations, and clearly articulate the weight accorded to such evidence; in so doing, the ALJ will further evaluate Plaintiff's subjective complaints under SSR 96-7p;
(3) reevaluate the step five findings and obtain supplemental vocational expert testimony to clarify the effect of the assessed limitations on the occupational base and
(4) consider the evidence submitted on appeal.
IT IS ORDERED:
The parties' stipulated motion for remand pursuant to sentence four, ECF No. 22, is granted.
The Commissioner's decision is reversed and the case is remanded for further administrative proceedings.
The District Court Executive is directed to file this Order, provide copies to counsel, enter judgment in favor of plaintiff and CLOSE the file.
Source: Leagle
