Mork, Kathleen v. Colvin, Carolyn
Filing
31
ORDER reversing and remanding action to the Commissioner of Social Security for further proceedings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 2/3/2016. (jls)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
KATHLEEN MORK,
Plaintiff,
ORDER
v.
14-cv-333-jdp
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
On October 10, 2014, plaintiff Kathleen Mork 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
May 18, 2015, following full briefing and oral argument 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 May 18, 2015 judgment should the court
of appeals remand the case for that purpose. On November 20, 2015, this court entered such
an order. On November 25, 2015, 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 further consider the medical evidence of
record, reassess plaintiff’s residual functional capacity, and issue a new decision
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: February 3, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
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?