ATWATER v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER, No. 1:2010cv00333 - Document 24 (D. Me. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE - granting 17 Motion to Remand ; adopting Report and Recommended Decision re 23 Report and Recommendations. By JUDGE GEORGE Z. SINGAL. (mnw)

Download PDF
ATWATER v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER Doc. 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE STACEY A. ATWATER, Plaintiff v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No 1:10-cv-333-GZS ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE No objections having been filed to the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision (Docket No. 23) filed March 18, 2011, the Recommended Decision is AFFIRMED. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendant s Motion to Remand (Docket No. 17) is GRANTED. Upon remand of the case by this Court, the Decision Review Board ( DRB ) will remand it to an Administrative Law Judge with instructions to provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to appear at an administrative hearing and submit additional and relevant evidence; give further consideration to the Plaintiff s severe impairments (including obesity and borderline intellectual functioning) both prior and subsequent to the date last insured; evaluate the Plaintiff s intellectual functioning in the context of Listing 12.(C); determine the Plaintiff s RFC supported by substantial evidence both prior and subsequent to the date last insured; evaluate whether the Plaintiff s work as a personal care attendant, or other work, constituted past relevant work at the level of substantial gainful activity; if so, compare Plaintiff s RFC with the functional requirements of the Dockets.Justia.com job; and, if Plaintiff has no past relevant work or is unable to perform past relevant work, proceed to step 5 of the sequential evaluation process. _/s/ George Z. Singal __ United States District Judge Dated this 6th day of April, 2011.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.