Gambsky v. Commissioner of Social Security, 17-C-322. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
Number: infdco20180801g57
Visitors: 3
Filed: Jul. 31, 2018
Latest Update: Jul. 31, 2018
Summary: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR INDICATIVE RULING WILLIAM C. GRIESBACH , Chief District Judge . This matter coming before the Court on the defendant's unopposed motion for relief from judgment, and the Court being fully informed that, following a Court of Appeals-ordered mediation, the parties have agreed that this case should be remanded for further proceedings under Sentence four of 28 U.S.C. 405(g). On remand, the ALJ will give the claimant the opportunity for a hearing
Summary: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR INDICATIVE RULING WILLIAM C. GRIESBACH , Chief District Judge . This matter coming before the Court on the defendant's unopposed motion for relief from judgment, and the Court being fully informed that, following a Court of Appeals-ordered mediation, the parties have agreed that this case should be remanded for further proceedings under Sentence four of 28 U.S.C. 405(g). On remand, the ALJ will give the claimant the opportunity for a hearing;..
More
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR INDICATIVE RULING
WILLIAM C. GRIESBACH, Chief District Judge.
This matter coming before the Court on the defendant's unopposed motion for relief from judgment, and the Court being fully informed that, following a Court of Appeals-ordered mediation, the parties have agreed that this case should be remanded for further proceedings under Sentence four of 28 U.S.C. § 405(g). On remand, the ALJ will give the claimant the opportunity for a hearing; reconsider the medical source opinions offered by consultative psychologist Kelly Schinke, Psy.D. and State agency psychologist Kenneth Clark, Ph.D., and provide the weight given to these opinions; reassess the claimant's maximum mental and physical residual functional capacity; and obtain, if necessary, supplemental vocational expert testimony to assist in determining what jobs exist for the claimant in the national economy.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties' Joint Motion for an Indicative Ruling pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1(a)(3) is GRANTED. The Court indicates that it is inclined to grant relief from its March 20, 2018 judgment should the court of appeals remand for that purpose.
Source: Leagle
