Lugo v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 28

OPINION AND ORDER granting 25 Commissioners Unopposed Motion for Relief from Judgment Under Rule 60(b): decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED and this case is REMANDED to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. section 405(g). Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 4/3/15. (mc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
STEVEN LUGO,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case. No. 2:13-cv-00203-RL-PRC

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Commissioner’s Unopposed Motion for Relief
from Judgment Under Rule 60(b). (DE #25.)
On December 2, 2014, in accordance with Seventh Circuit Rule 57 and pursuant to the
Commissioner’s request, the Court reviewed the record and agreed with the parties that further
administrative proceedings were warranted. The Court indicated that it was inclined to grant the
relief sought by the Commissioner if the case was remanded by the United States Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit for purposes of modifying the judgment. On February 20, 2015,
a mandate was issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, remanding
the case to this Court pursuant to Circuit Rule 57 and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
12.1(b).
Therefore, in light of the foregoing, the decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED
and this case is REMANDED to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings
pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. section 405(g). Upon remand, the Administrative Law
Judge shall update the record, including evidence relating to Plaintiff’s mental impairment;

reevaluate the severity of Plaintiff’s mental impairment pursuant to the special technique;
reevaluate the medical opinions of record and explain the weight given to this evidence; consider
the reasons why Plaintiff did not seek treatment; reassess Plaintiff’s maximum residual
functional capacity, particularly his reaching and handling limitations; and, if necessary, obtain
supplemental evidence from a vocational expert to clarify the effect of the assessed limitations
on the occupational base.

Entered this 3nd day of April, 2015.

s/ Rudy Lozano
Rudy Lozano
United States District Judge

2