Robitaille v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 2:2013cv00291 - Document 30 (D. Vt. 2019)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER granting 27 MOTION to Remand to Social Security Administration pursuant to Sentence Six of 42 U.S.C. Section 405(g); denying as moot 26 MOTION for Order Reversing the Decision of the Commissioner. Signed by Judge William K. Sessions III on 10/11/2019. (jam)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Robitaille v. Commissioner of Social Security Doc. 30 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF VERMONT RENE H. ROBITAILLE, Plaintiff, Case No. 2:13-cv-291 v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant. OPINION AND ORDER Upon consideration of the Commissioner’s motion to reverse and remand this matter for further administrative proceedings and Plaintiff’s objection, it is hereby ORDERED that the Commissioner’s motion is granted. The decision of the Commissioner is reversed pursuant to sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) with remand of the cause to the Commissioner for further proceedings. See Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 98–101 (1991) (outlining the conditions of remands in the Social Security Act). Upon remand, the Appeals Council will: 1) instruct a new Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) to provide Plaintiff an opportunity for a new hearing and to present additional evidence; 2) determine whether there is good cause to reopen the subsequent allowance in accordance with 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.987–98 and 416.1487–98; 3) reevaluate the nature and severity of Plaintiff’s medically determinable mental impairments; 4) reevaluate whether Dockets.Justia.com Plaintiff’s mental impairments meet or equal the severity of any listed impairment; and 5) reconsider Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity, if warranted. In addition, the ALJ shall reevaluate the medical and nonmedical opinions in the record, including Dr. Hurley’s opinion, ensuring that all evidence is exhibited, and obtain additional medical expert opinion if needed. The ALJ will also request supplemental vocational expert evidence, if necessary, and resolve any conflict between the vocational expert’s testimony and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles in accordance with SSR 004-p. Finally, if the ALJ decides to re-open Plaintiff’s favorable decision, the ALJ should apply the rules found in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1594 and 20 C.F.R. § 416994 to the extent applicable. Dated at Burlington, in the District of Vermont, this 11th day of October, 2019. /s/ William K. Sessions III William K. Sessions III District Court 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.
