Lint v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 23

ORDER granting 22 Stipulated Motion for Remand Pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g) and Closing File. 15 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is stricken as moot. Case is remanded to Commissioner of Social Security. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mary K. Dimke. (KW, Case Administrator)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

7

STEVE LINT,

8
9
10

Plaintiff,
vs.
COMMISSIONER
SECURITY,

11
12

No. 1:17-cv-03079-MKD

OF

SOCIAL

ORDER GRANTING
STIPULATED MOTION FOR
REMAND PURSUANT TO
SENTENCE FOUR OF 42 U.S.C. §
405(g) AND CLOSING FILE
ECF Nos. 15, 22

Defendant.
BEFORE THE COURT is the parties’ Stipulated Motion for Remand (ECF

13

No. 22) of the above-captioned matter to the Commissioner for additional

14

administrative proceeding pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

15

Attorney D. James Tree represents Plaintiff. Attorney Lisa Goldoftas represents

16

Defendant. The parties have consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. ECF

17

No. 7. After considering the file and proposed order, IT IS HEREBY

18

ORDERED:

19
20

1. The parties’ Stipulated Motion for Remand (ECF No. 22) is
GRANTED.

ORDER - 1

1

2. The above-captioned case is REVERSED and REMANDED to the

2

Commissioner of Social Security for further administrative proceeding pursuant to

3

sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

4

The parties agree on and the Court ORDERS the following terms:

5

On remand, the Appeals Council will direct the administrative law judge

6

(ALJ) to further develop the record and issue a new decision. The ALJ will (1)

7

reevaluate the medical evidence, including the opinions of Jay M. Toews, Ed.D.;

8

Wendi Wachsmuth, Ph.D.; Chris De Villeneuve, M.Ed.; and State agency medical

9

consultants; (2) obtain appropriate medical expert evidence to provide a

10

longitudinal overview and clarify the nature, severity and limiting effects of

11

Plaintiff’s medically determinable mental impairments throughout the period at

12

issue; (3) reevaluate Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity during the period at

13

issue and provide a rationale with specific references to the record evidence in

14

support of assessed limitations; (4) reassess Plaintiff’s subjective complaints1; and

15
16
1

17

In March 2016, the Social Security Administration implemented Social Security

Ruling (SSR) 16-4p, 2016 WL 1119029 (Mar. 16, 2016), rescinding SSR 96-7p,
18

1996 WL 374186 (July 2, 1996) to “eliminate[e] the use of the term ‘credibility’”

19

from the ALJ’s subjective testimony analysis and “clarify that subjective symptom

20

evaluation is not an examination of an individual's character” or “truthfulness in
the manner typically used during an adversarial court litigation.” 2016 WL
ORDER - 2

1

(5) continue the sequential evaluation process, obtaining expert vocational expert

2

testimony as warranted. ECF No. 22 at 1-2.

3

3. Judgment shall be entered for PLAINTIFF.

4

4. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 15) is STRICKEN

5

AS MOOT.

6

5. Upon proper presentation, this Court will consider Plaintiff’s application

7

for fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d).

8
9
10

The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order, enter
Judgment, forward copies to counsel, and CLOSE THE FILE.
DATED December 1, 2017.

11

s/Mary K. Dimke
MARY K. DIMKE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

119029, at *1-10. Though the ALJ rendered her October 28, 2015 decision under
SSR 96-7p, on remand, SSR 16-3p shall control.
ORDER - 3