Summary
granting consent motion to remand case, and directing that, on remand, "[t]he ALJ will be directed to recontact ... Plaintiff's treating physician[] for clarification of any ambiguous treatment notes"
Summary of this case from Lemire v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.Opinion
Civil Action 09-0018-KD-B.
September 15, 2009
ORDER
After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the issues raised, and there having been no objections filed, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and dated August 27, 2009 is hereby ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court.
Accordingly, for good cause shown, it is ORDERED that Defendant's unopposed Motion and Memorandum for Entry of Judgment Pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) with Remand of the Cause to the Defendant (Doc. 17) be and hereby is GRANTED, and that this action is REMANDED to the Social Security Administration pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) so that the Appeals Council will ". . . remand this case to an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), who will conduct a de novo hearing and issue a new decision. The ALJ will be specifically instructed to pose a proper hypothetical question to the vocational expert . . . that accurately and specifically describes Plaintiff's functional abilities and limitations. In addition, the ALJ will be directed to recontact Dr. Tarabein, Plaintiff's treating physician, for clarification of any ambiguous treatment notes and to request his opinion regarding Plaintiff's abilities and limitations" (Id. at 1-2).
This remand, pursuant to sentence four of Section 405(g), makes Plaintiff a prevailing party for purposes of the Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (1993).