Troeppl v. Colvin
Filing
19
ORDER granting 18 Stipulated Motion to Remand - signed by Judge David W. Christel.(SH)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
8
9
10
KERRY M. TROEPPL,
11
Plaintiff,
13
14
ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED
MOTION FOR REMAND
v.
12
CASE NO. 2:16-CV-01702-DWC
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration,
Defendant.
15
16
17
This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Fed. R. Civ. P. 73 and Local
18 Magistrate Judge Rule MJR 13. See also Consent to Proceed before a United States Magistrate
19 Judge, Dkt. 6. Presently before the Court is Defendant’s Stipulated Motion for Remand
20 (“Motion”). Dkt. 18. After reviewing the Motion and the relevant record, the Court orders the
21 following:
22
Defendant’s Motion is granted, and the case is reversed and remanded for further
23 administrative proceedings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
24
On remand, the Commissioner shall:
ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION
FOR REMAND - 1
1
•
Reassess the opinions of treating psychiatrist, Richard Ries, M.D.; examining
2
psychologists Barbara Lui, Ph.D., and R.A. Cline, Psy.D.; and other sources, case
3
manager Natalie Frick, and mental health counselor, Caitlin Cotter;
4
•
5
Reassess Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity in light of the preceding assessments,
as well as other steps in the sequential evaluation process, as necessary;
6
•
The ALJ will offer Plaintiff an opportunity for a hearing; and
7
•
Plaintiff may also present new arguments and further medical evidence, if such
8
9
evidence becomes available.
The parties agree that on proper motion the Court should consider Plaintiff’s application
10 for attorney fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d).
11
Dated this 14th day of August, 2017.
12
13
A
14
David W. Christel
United States Magistrate Judge
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER GRANTING 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?