Tecle v. Colvin
Filing
20
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 19 Stipulated MOTION to Remand filed by Carolyn W Colvin; signed by Magistrate Judge David W. Christel. Noting Date 12/6/2016. (CMG)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
8
9
10
FASIL TECLE,
11
12
13
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
CASE NO. 2:16-CV-00908-JLR-DWC
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S
STIPULATED MOTION FOR
REMAND
14
Defendant.
15
16
The District Court has referred this action, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), to United
17 States Magistrate Judge David W. Christel. Presently before the Court is Defendant’s Stipulated
18 Motion for Remand. Dkt. 19. After reviewing Defendant’s Stipulated Motion and the relevant
19 record, the Court recommends the following:
20
Defendant’s Motion be granted, and the case be reversed and remanded for further
21 administrative proceedings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
22
On remand, the Court recommends the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) hold a de novo
23 hearing and issue a new decision. The Court also recommends the ALJ’s review include but not
24 be limited to:
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S STIPULATED
MOTION FOR REMAND - 1
1
•
2
Obtaining vocational expert testimony to determine whether Plaintiff’s assessed
limitations allow for the performance of other work in the national economy;
3
•
4
The parties agree that on proper motion the Court should consider Plaintiff’s application
Recommencing the five-step sequential evaluation if the record is supplemented.
5 for costs and attorney fees under 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) and 42 U.S.C. § 406(b).
6
Given the facts and the parties’ stipulation, the Court recommends the District Judge
7 immediately approve this Report and Recommendation.
8
Dated this 6th day of December, 2016.
A
9
10
David W. Christel
United States Magistrate Judge
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S STIPULATED
MOTION FOR REMAND - 2
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?