Vang, Nhia v. Colvin, Carolyn

Filing 32

ORDER reversing and remanding action to the Commissioner of Social Security for further proceedings. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 12/16/2014. (arw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - NHIA VANG,
ORDER
Plaintiff,
13-cv-278-bbc
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - On April 26, 2013, plaintiff Nhia Vang filed a motion under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g),
seeking review of the defendant commissioner’s final decision that she was not disabled. On
March 20, 2014, following full briefing by the parties, the court entered judgment in favor
of the commissioner. Plaintiff appealed. While the appeal was pending, counsel filed a joint
motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1(1)(3), seeking an indication from this court that it would
be inclined to grant relief from the March 20, 2014 judgment should the court of appeals
remand the case for that purpose. On December 8, 2014, this court entered such an order.
On December 10, 2014, the court of appeals remanded the case under Fed. R. App. P. 12.1
and Cir. R. 57 for a ruling on counsel’s joint

motion for judgment reversing the

commissioner’s decision under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and remanding the case
to the commissioner. The motion will be granted.
On remand, an administrative law judge will (1) further develop the record allowing
the claimant an opportunity to submit any additional evidence of possible fibromyalgia; (2)

1

if warranted, follow the guidance in Social Security 12-2p and obtain evidence from a
medical expert, to clarify the severity and effects of fibromyalgia; (3) reevaluate the opinion
evidence, including the December 2011 opinion of Swati Biswas, M.D., and the opinion of
Paul A. Cederberg, M.D., and explain the weight assigned to the medical source opinions;
(4) reassess the claimant’s credibility, including asking the claimant to explain any gaps in
treatment; (5) further determine whether the claimant could perform the physical and
mental demands of her past relevant work as a sewing machine operator; and, (6) if the case
proceeds to step five, obtain supplemental evidence from a vocational expert to clarify the
effect of the assessed limitations on the occupational base.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that the decision of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security
in this case is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED to the commissioner.
Entered this 16th day of December, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge

2