Flower v. Barnhart

Filing 25

Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Order on Motion to Remand to Agency

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ALASKA LILA M. FLOWER, Plaintiff, vs. JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 3:06-CV-0065-JWS ORDER FOR REMAND Based on the stipulation of the parties, the motion at docket 14 is DENIED as moot, and the motion at docket 23 is GRANTED as follows: IT IS ORDERED that the Commissioner's decision in regard to Plaintiff's applications for disability insurance benefits under Title II and Supplemental Security Income disability benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act be REVERSED and REMANDED to the Commissioner of Social Security for further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). On remand, the administrative law judge (ALJ) should hold a de novo hearing, reevaluate the nature and severity of Plaintiff's headaches and mental impairments and document his findings regarding the mental impairments pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 and § 416.920a. The ALJ will consult with a medical expert if necessary. In addition, the ALJ will evaluate the opinions from Matthew Wise, M.D., as well as the opinions from the State agency physicians. The ALJ will also reevaluate Plaintiff's testimony and evaluate the statement from David Flower. The ALJ will reevaluate Plaintiff's residual functional capacity and provide sufficient rationale for the finding. The ALJ will compare Plaintiff's residual functional capacity with the requirements of Plaintiff's past relevant work and if necessary, obtain supplemental vocational expert testimony to clarify the effect of any assessed limitations on Plaintiff's occupational base. Plaintiff may submit additional evidence to the ALJ. DATED this 27th day of September 2006. /s/ JOHN W. SEDWICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?