Clark v Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 24

STIPULATION AND ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 1/7/13 ORDERING that this action be remanded to the Commissioner of Social Security for further administrative action pursuant to section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), sentence four; REMANDING CASE to Commissioner of Social Security. CASE CLOSED (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4

BENJAMIN W AGNER CSBN 163581
United States Attorney
DONNA L. CALVERT SBN IL 619786
Acting Regional Chief Counsel, Region IX
Social Security Administration
ELIZABETH BARRY CSBN 203314
Special Assistant United States Attorney

5

160 Spear Street, Suite 800
San Francisco, California 94105
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

6
7
8

Attorneys for Defendant

9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SACRAMENTO DIVISION

10
11

CHERRHONDA LEE ANN CLARK,
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
15

COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Michael Astrue

16
Defendant.
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-2:12-cv-00479-CMK
STIPULATION AND ORDER
FOR REMAND PURSUANT TO SENTENCE
FOUR OF 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)

)
)

__________________________________ )
18
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the parties, through their respective counsel of
19
record, that this action be remanded to the Commissioner of Social Security for further administrative
20
action pursuant to section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), sentence
21
four.
22
On remand, the administrative law judge (ALJ) is directed to: (1) update the treatment evidence on
23
the claimant's medical condition; (2) develop the record by forwarding the claimant's school records to
24
Dr. Wakefield for consideration, or, alternatively, obtain a new psychological consultative examination;
25
(3) if warranted, obtain evidence from a medical expert to clarify the nature and severity of the
26
claimant's mental impairment and whether she meets or equals Listing 12.05C; (4) articulate how the
27
severity of all medically determinable mental impairments was evaluated under the special technique; (5)
28
explain how the credibility of the claimant's subjective complaints was evaluated in light of the

1

comments above; (6) expressly evaluate the treating, examining, and non-examining medical source

2

opinions in addition to the non-medical opinions cited above and explain the reasons for the weight he

3

gives to this opinion evidence; (7) further consider the claimant's residual functional capacity on the

4

updated record, citing specific evidence in support of the assessed limitations; (8) further consider

5

whether the claimant has past relevant work she could perform with the limitations established by the

6

evidence; (9) as appropriate, secure supplemental evidence from a vocational expert to clarify the effect

7

of the assessed limitations on the claimant's occupational base; and (10) consolidate and consider

8

together the claimant's subsequent application for concurrent benefits filed on June 20, 2011, denied at

9

the initial level.

10
11
12

Respectfully submitted,
Dated: December 26, 2012

13

/s/ Ann M. Cerney
(as authorized via telephone)
ANN M. CERNEY
Attorney for Plaintiff

14
15

BENJAMIN WAGNER
United States Attorney

16
Dated: December 26, 2012
17
18

By /s/ Elizabeth Barry
ELIZABETH BARRY
Special Assistant U.S. Attorney
Attorneys for Defendant

19
20
ORDER
21
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
22
23
24
25
26

DATED: January 7, 2013
______________________________________
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28
2