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)

Download PDF
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

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?