GURNEY v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER, No. 1:2014cv00101 - Document 19 (D. Me. 2015)
Court Description: ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 and granting 14 Motion to Remand. By JUDGE GEORGE Z. SINGAL. (MSH)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
GURNEY v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER Doc. 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT District of Maine VICTORIA GURNEY, Plaintiff v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner, Social Security, Defendant ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 1:14-cv-00101-GZS ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE The United States Magistrate Judge filed with the Court on February 4, 2015, his Recommended Decision (ECF No. 17). Plaintiff filed her Objection to the Recommended Decision (ECF No. 15) on January 5, 2015. Defendant filed her Reply to Plaintiff’s Objection to the Recommended Decision (ECF No. 16) on January 20, 2015. I have reviewed and considered the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision, together with the entire record; I have made a de novo determination of all matters adjudicated by the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision; and I concur with the recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge for the reasons set forth in his Recommended Decision, and determine that no further proceeding is necessary. 1. It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge is hereby AFFIRMED. Dockets.Justia.com 2. It is hereby ORDERED that this case is REMANDED for further administrative proceedings under the following conditions: That the issue on remand is limited to assessing the significance of Plaintiff’s IQ testing scores to Plaintiff’s RFC and whether jobs exist in significant numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff could perform in light of her borderline IQ; That the ALJ obtain further evidence, including testimony, from a vocational expert; That the ALJ obtain further medical evidence, including testimony, on the issue of Plaintiff’s IQ and its impact on Plaintiff’s functional capacity; and That the proceedings before the ALJ, including the issuance of the decision, conclude within 60 days of remand; if the decision of the ALJ is a denial of benefits and if Plaintiff appeals from that decision, that Defendant issue a final decision within 60 days of the appeal.1 /s/George Z. Singal_____________ U.S. District Judge Dated this 25th day of February, 2015. The recommendation regarding the time within which the proceedings are to be included is in accord with the Court’s directive in Butts, 388 F3d at 387. 1
]]>
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.
