Baker v. SSA

Filing 17

JUDGMENT: Pursuant to Order entered concurrently herewith, Court being advised, IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that motion for summary judgment of pla (Doc. 13 ) be, and it is, hereby granted in part as to plas request for a reversal of Co mmissioner's decision and remand, and denied in part as to plas request for a court-ordered award of benefits; that summary judgment is entered for pla herein, and that the motion for summary judgment of dft (Doc. 14 ) is denied. IT I S FURTHER ADJUDGED that action is remanded for further consideration by Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) with instructions to ALJ to reassess whether pla is disabled at step five of the sequential evaluatio n after obtaining VE's response to a hypothetical question that accurately portrays plas limitations, including those posed by his illiteracy and action is hereby dismissed and stricken from active docket of this Court. Signed by Judge William O. Bertelsman on 6/27/2014. (TDA) cc: COR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
SOUTHERN DIVISION
AT PIKEVILLE
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2013-99 (WOB-CJS)
HAROLD BAKER
VS.

PLAINTIFF
JUDGMENT

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ACTING
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

DEFENDANT

Pursuant to the Order entered concurrently herewith, the
Court being advised,
IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the motion for summary
judgment of the plaintiff (Doc. 13) be, and it is, hereby
granted in part as to plaintiff’s request for a reversal of the
Commissioner’s decision and remand, and denied in part as to
plaintiff’s request for a court-ordered award of benefits; that
summary judgment is entered for plaintiff herein, and that the
motion for summary judgment of defendant (Doc. 14) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ADJUDGED that this action is remanded for
further consideration by the Commissioner pursuant to sentence
four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) with instructions to the ALJ to
reassess whether plaintiff is disabled at step five of the
sequential evaluation after obtaining the VE’s response to a
hypothetical question that accurately portrays plaintiff’s
limitations, including those posed by his illiteracy and this
action is hereby dismissed and stricken from the active docket
of this Court.

This 27th day of June, 2014.