Gipson v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 18

ORDER Remanding Case, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 10/20/15. CASE CLOSED. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN L. GIPSON, Plaintiff, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 v. Case No. 1:14-cv-01709-EPG ORDER REMANDING CASE (ECF No. 16) CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. Based upon the parties’ Stipulation for Remand (ECF No. 16), this matter shall be remanded to the Commissioner as authorized by sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and judgment shall be entered for Plaintiff and against Defendant. On remand, the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review’s Appeal Council will remand the case to an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) for a new hearing and decision. The Appeals Council will instruct the ALJ to reassess the credibility of Plaintiff’s subjective complaints consistent with 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929, and Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 96-7p and to evaluate any lay witness evidence consistent with SSR 06-03p. The Appeals Council will also instruct the ALJ to further evaluate whether Plaintiff has the residual functional capacity to perform his past relevant work and, if appropriate, obtain supplemental vocational expert testimony to assist in determining what jobs exist, if any, for Plaintiff given his age, education, vocational factors, and residual functional capacity. 28 1 1 The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter final judgment in favor of Plaintiff John L. 2 Gipson and against Defendant Carolyn W. Colvin, the Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 3 and to close this case. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 Dated: October 20, 2015 /s/ Erica P. Grosjean UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?