Davis v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 3:2012cv03122 - Document 11 (C.D. Ill. 2013)
Court Description: OPINION entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 01/08/2013. SEE WRITTEN OPINION. The pending Motion for Summary Judgment 7 is DENIED AS MOOT. CASE CLOSED. It is therefore ordered that this case is remanded for further proceedings pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 405(g), sentence 4. (DM, ilcd)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
E-FILED Wednesday, 09 January, 2013 09:15:39 AM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS SPRINGFIELD DIVISION DARLEEN DAVIS, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSION OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 12-3122 OPINION SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge. The Court, having considered the Stipulation to Remand Under the Fourth Sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), now ORDERS that this case be remanded for further proceedings pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). On remand, Plaintiff may submit additional evidence, and the administrative law judge (ALJ) will hold a new hearing and issue a new decision. The ALJ will reevaluate the State agency physicians objections. If the ALJ rejects any portion of an opinion, the ALJ will provide good reasons in accordance with 20 C.F.R. § 416.927. The ALJ will also reconsider the evidence concerning Plaintiff s limitation of social functioning and concentration, persistence and pace, identify specific work-related limitations that flow from those deficiencies, and provide a rationale for identifying such work restrictions. The ALJ will also consider Plaintiff s need to use a cane. If the ALJ finds that the cane use is unnecessary, the ALJ will provide a rationale for such conclusion. If necessary and appropriate, the ALJ will obtain further testimony from a vocational expert concerning the existence of jobs Plaintiff can perform and, if necessary and appropriate, employ a framework analysis at Step Five of the sequential evaluation process in accordance with Social Security Ruling 83-12 and 83-14. The pending Motion for Summary Judgment [7] is DENIED AS MOOT. CASE CLOSED. ENTER: January 8, 2013 FOR THE COURT: s/Sue E. Myerscough SUE E. MYERSCOUGH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
]]>
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.
