Karr v. Colvin

Filing 21

ORDER granting 20 Stipulated Motion to Remand by Judge David W. Christel.(KEB)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 8 9 10 CHERYL KARR, 11 Plaintiff, 13 ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION FOR REMAND v. 12 CASE NO. 3:15-CV-05827-DWC CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 14 Defendant. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Presently before the Court is Defendant’s Stipulated Motion for Remand. Dkt. 20. After reviewing Defendant’s Stipulated Motion and the relevant record, the Court orders the following: Defendant’s Motion is granted, and the case is reversed and remanded for further administrative proceedings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). On remand, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) shall hold a de novo hearing and issue a new decision. The ALJ shall: • Re-evaluate the medical opinion evidence, in particular the opinion of Craig Southwell, M.D.; 24 ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION FOR REMAND - 1 1 • Evaluate Plaintiff’s subjective complaints under the provisions of SSR 16-3p; 2 • Reassess Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity, as necessary; 3 • Re-evaluate Plaintiff’s ability to perform her past relevant work, making specific 4 findings, explaining and resolving any conflicts, and obtaining, as necessary, 5 supplemental vocational expert testimony; 6 • 7 As necessary, re-evaluate Plaintiff’s ability to perform other work as Step Five, obtaining, if necessary, supplemental vocational expert testimony; 8 • Take any other actions necessary to develop the record; and 9 • Issue a new decision. 10 The parties agree that on proper motion the Court shall consider Plaintiff’s application for 11 costs and attorney fees under 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) and 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). 12 Dated this 27th day of April, 2016. 13 14 A 15 David W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge 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?