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)

Download PDF
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?