Lugo v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 2:2013cv00203 - Document 28 (N.D. Ind. 2015)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER granting 25 Commissioners Unopposed Motion for Relief from Judgment Under Rule 60(b): decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED and this case is REMANDED to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. section 405(g). Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 4/3/15. (mc)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Lugo v. Commissioner of Social Security Doc. 28 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA HAMMOND DIVISION STEVEN LUGO, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case. No. 2:13-cv-00203-RL-PRC OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on the Commissioner’s Unopposed Motion for Relief from Judgment Under Rule 60(b). (DE #25.) On December 2, 2014, in accordance with Seventh Circuit Rule 57 and pursuant to the Commissioner’s request, the Court reviewed the record and agreed with the parties that further administrative proceedings were warranted. The Court indicated that it was inclined to grant the relief sought by the Commissioner if the case was remanded by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit for purposes of modifying the judgment. On February 20, 2015, a mandate was issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, remanding the case to this Court pursuant to Circuit Rule 57 and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 12.1(b). Therefore, in light of the foregoing, the decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED and this case is REMANDED to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. section 405(g). Upon remand, the Administrative Law Judge shall update the record, including evidence relating to Plaintiff’s mental impairment; Dockets.Justia.com reevaluate the severity of Plaintiff’s mental impairment pursuant to the special technique; reevaluate the medical opinions of record and explain the weight given to this evidence; consider the reasons why Plaintiff did not seek treatment; reassess Plaintiff’s maximum residual functional capacity, particularly his reaching and handling limitations; and, if necessary, obtain supplemental evidence from a vocational expert to clarify the effect of the assessed limitations on the occupational base. Entered this 3nd day of April, 2015. s/ Rudy Lozano Rudy Lozano United States District Judge 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.
