(SS) Bradshaw v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 2:2010cv00788 - Document 24 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/5/10, ORDERING the Clerk to enter a final judgment in favor of pltf and against dft. (Kastilahn, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(SS) Bradshaw v. Commissioner of Social Security 1 2 3 4 BENJAMIN B. WAGNER United States Attorney LUCILLE GONZALES MEIS Regional Chief Counsel, Region IX Social Security Administration LESLIE ALEXANDER (CSBN 256624) Special Assistant United States Attorney 5 333 Market Street, Suite 1500 San Francisco, California 94105 Telephone: (415) 977-8927 Facsimile: (415) 744-0134 E-Mail: Leslie.Alexander@ssa.gov 6 7 8 Doc. 24 Attorneys for Defendant 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 SACRAMENTO DIVISION 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 THRESSA BRADSHAW, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, ) Commissioner of ) Social Security, ) ) Defendant. ) _________________________________) CIVIL NO. 2:10-CV-0788-FCD-DAD STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR REMAND PURSUANT TO SENTENCE FOUR OF 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF AND AGAINST DEFENDANT 19 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the parties, through their respective counsel of 20 21 record, that this action be remanded to the Commissioner of Social Security for further administrative 22 action pursuant to section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), sentence 23 four. On remand, the Appeals Counsel will instruct the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) to obtain 24 25 additional evidence from a vocational expert (VE) to address the apparent inconsistency between the 26 occupational requirement descriptions in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) and the jobs cited 27 in the October 20, 2009, hearing decision. 28 ///// Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 The ALJ will offer Plaintiff the opportunity for a new hearing, and Plaintiff is free to submit new evidence. The parties stipulate that no specific aspect of the ALJ’s prior decision is affirmed, and following the end of the remand proceedings, the ALJ will issue a new decision. The parties further request that the Clerk of the Court be directed to enter a final judgment in 6 favor of Plaintiff, and against Defendant, Commissioner of Social Security, reversing the final decision 7 of the Commissioner. Nothing in this proposed order shall be taken to affect Plaintiff’s right to request 8 Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) attorney’s fees under 28 U.S.C. § 2412, or costs under 28 U.S.C. 9 § 1920, or to prevent Defendant from opposing any such requests. Respectfully submitted, 10 11 Dated: October 1, 2010 s/ Sengthiene Bosavanh (As authorized by email) SENGTHIENE BOSAVANH Attorney for Plaintiff Date: October 1, 2010 BENJAMIN B. WAGNER United States Attorney 12 13 14 By s/ Leslie Alexander LESLIE ALEXANDER Special Assistant U. S. Attorney 15 16 Attorneys for Defendant 17 18 ORDER 19 20 21 22 23 The parties’ stipulation for remand is approved, and the Clerk of the Court is directed to enter a final judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant, Commissioner of Social Security. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: October 5, 2010. 24 25 26 27 Ddad1\orders.socsec\bradshaw0788.stipord.remand 28 2
]]>
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.
