Edwards v. Astrue

Filing 9

ORDER granting 8 Motion to Remand. Ordered by Judge Hugh Lawson on 2/28/2011. (nbp)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION LINDA G. EDWARDS Plaintiff, MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 7:10-CV-00132-HL ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the unopposed motion of the Defendant to remand this case to the Commissioner for further action under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g). Upon consideration of the motion, and the grounds urged in support thereof, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the decision of the Commissioner is hereby reversed under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g) and this case is hereby remanded to the Commissioner of Social Security for the administrative law judge to: Consider the consultative examination report from Karl Willers, Ph.D. that was submitted in connection with the request for Appeals Council review; Further consider the impairments of cerebellar atrophy and encephalomalacia; Attempt to obtain any available additional evidence regarding the claimant's mental and physical impairments; If necessary, obtain a consultative psychological examination with psychological testing to determine the nature and severity of the claimant's mental impairment; Further evaluate whether the claimant meets Listing 12.05; Give further consideration to the claimant's maximum residual functional capacity and provide rationale with specific references to evidence of record; and If warranted, obtain testimony from a vocational expert to clarify the effect of the assessed limitations on the claimant's occupational base. The Clerk of the Court is hereby directed to enter a separate judgment pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. IT IS SO ORDERED this 28th day of February, 2011. s/ Hugh Lawson HUGH LAWSON UNITED STATES SENIOR 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?