Eibl v. Berryhill
Filing
17
ORDER signed by Judge Pamela Pepper on 12/11/2018 REVERSING Commissioner's denial of benefits and REMANDING CASE to Commissioner for further proceedings under Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. §405(g). (cc: all counsel)(cb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
SARAH C. EIBL,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 17-cv-240-pp
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Defendant.
ORDER REMANDING CASE UNDER SENTENCE FOUR
The plaintiff filed a complaint seeking review of the ALJ’s decision
denying her application for disability insurance benefits. Dkt. No. 1. In her
brief, the plaintiff asked the court to either reverse the ALJ’s decision and
remand for an award of benefits or remand for additional proceedings. Dkt. No.
11 at 19. The defendant’s three-page response agreed that the court should
remand for additional proceedings, citing language from sentence four of 42
U.S.C. §405(g). Dkt. No. 14. The plaintiff responded by agreeing to remand, and
asking the court to require the ALJ to separately address her concerns. Dkt.
No. 16.
The court REVERSES the decision of the Commissioner and REMANDS
the case for further administrative action under sentence four of 42 U.S.C.
§405(g). On remand, the ALJ shall: (1) re-evaluate the opinions of Dr. Jennifer
Schroderus and Dr. Kathleen Brass, addressing the factors required by 20
C.F.R. §404.1527(c) and re-contacting these providers for clarification if
1
necessary; (2) re-evaluate the plaintiff’s impairments in social functioning and
concentration, persistence, or pace and include the limitations in the residual
functional capacity assessment; and (3) account for the combined effect of all of
the plaintiff’s physical impairments, including obesity.
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 11th day of December, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
_____________________________________
HON. PAMELA PEPPER
United States District Judge
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?