Nathan v. Berryhill

Filing 12

ORDER Granting 11 Stipulated Motion to Remand for Further Administrative Proceedings signed by Hon. Mary Alice Theiler. (KMP)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 8 9 10 PAUL ANTHONY NATHAN, 11 Plaintiff, 12 vs. Civil No. 3:17-cv-05780-MAT 13 [PROPOSED] ORDER NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 14 Defendant. 15 16 17 18 Based on the stipulation of the parties, it is hereby ORDERED that the above-captioned case be REVERSED and REMANDED for further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). On remand, the administrative law judge (ALJ) will: (1) further evaluate the opinion evidence, including the State agency opinions of Renee 19 20 21 Eisenhauer, Ph.D., and Thomas Clifford, Ph.D.; (2) further evaluate Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity; (3) continue with the sequential evaluation process, reevaluating Plaintiff’s ability to perform 22 past relevant work and/or other work, and obtaining, if warranted, supplemental 23 vocational evidence; and 24 Page 1 ORDER - [3:17-cv-05780-MAT] 1 (4) issue a new decision. 2 This case is reversed and remanded on the above grounds, and Plaintiff is entitled to 3 reasonable attorney fees and expenses pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412, and costs pursuant to 28 4 U.S.C. § 1920, upon proper request to this Court. 5 DATED this 15th day of February, 2018. 6 A 7 Mary Alice Theiler United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Presented by: s/ Danielle R. Mroczek DANIELLE R. MROCZEK Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Office of the General Counsel Social Security Administration 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900 M/S 221A Seattle, WA 98104-7075 Telephone: (206) 615-2946 Fax: (206) 615-2531 danielle.mroczek@ssa.gov 19 20 21 22 23 24 Page 2 ORDER - [3:17-cv-05780-MAT]

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?