Beach, Becki v. Colvin, Carolyn

Filing 12

ORDER on 11 Joint Stipulation to Remand to the Commissioner of Social Security. The parties may have until 7/30/2015 to advise the court whether they agree with its interpretation of the question on remand and, if not, how they believe the question should be re-worded for greater clarity. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 7/21/2015. (arw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - BECKI BEACH,
ORDER
Plaintiff,
14-cv-857-bbc
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The parties have filed a motion for remand under sentence four of Section 205(g) of
the Social Security Act, specifying the directive they want the appeals council to give the
administrative law judge on remand, which is “to reassess plaintiff’s residual functional
capacity and offer rationale regarding how the psychological limitations reflected in that
assessment accommodate the severity of restriction evaluated in the broad functional area
of maintaining concentration, persistence, or pace.” Jt. stip., dkt. #11, at 1. They add that
the administrative law judge is also to obtain supplemental vocational expert evidence at step
four and, as necessary, step five of the sequential evaluation process. Id.
Because the parties have agreed on the wording of the remand order and the directive,
it may well be that the council and the administrative law judge will understand it.
However, I would be at a loss if I were required to determine in the future whether the terms
of the directive had been met. After reviewing the administrative law judge’s opinion, my
best guess is that the parties want the newly assigned administrative law judge to undertake

1

a new assessment of plaintiff’s residual functional capacity, including her psychological and
mental limitations, and then determine how her ability to maintain concentration,
persistence and pace in the workplace is accounted for in that assessment. It would be
helpful to hear from the parties on this question.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that the parties may have until July 30, 2015, in which to advise
the court whether they agree with my interpretation of the question on remand and, if they
do not agree, how they believe the question should be reworded for greater clarity.
Entered this 21st day of July, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge

2