Garrett v. Colvin
Court Docket Sheet

District of Arizona

4:2015-cv-00221 (azd)

STATUS REPORT regarding Plaintiff's Response to Motion to Alter or Amend the Court's Order by Katherine Carlene Garrett.

Case 4:15-cv-00221-DTF Document 25 Filed 08/28/17 Page 1 of 2 1 Edward A. Wicklund, Esq. 2 Admitted Pro Hac Vice Olinsky Law Group 3 One Park Place 300 South State Street, Suite 420 4 Syracuse, NY 13202 Telephone: (315) 701-5780 5 Facsimile: (315) 701-5781 6 twicklund@windisability.com 7 Attorney for Plaintiff Katherine Charlene Garrett 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 9 10 Katherine Charlene Garrett, 11 Plaintiff, Civil No. 4:15-cv-00221-TUC-DTF 12 vs. 13 STATUS REPORT REGARDING Commissioner of Social Security, PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO 14 MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND Defendant THE COURT’S ORDER 15 16 17 Before the Court is the Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion 18 to Amend/Correct Order that the decision of the ALJ is reversed and remanded for further 19 consideration consistent with SSR 16-3P. Through Counsel, Edward A. Wicklund, 20 Plaintiff Katherine Charlene Garrett gives notice that this Motion to Amend/Correct 21 Order has been fully submitted and is awaiting decision since the November 2, 2016 22 23 Your attention in this matter is appreciated. 24 August 28, 2017 25/s/Edward A. Wicklund Edward A. Wicklund, Esq. 26 27 1 28 Case 4:15-cv-00221-DTF Document 25 Filed 08/28/17 Page 2 of 2 Olinsky Law Group 1 Admitted Pro Hac Vice 2 Attorneys for Plaintiff One Park Place 3 300 South State Street, Suite 420 Syracuse, New York 13202 4 Phone: (315) 701-5780 Facsimile: (315) 701-5781 5 Email: twicklund@windisability.com 6 7 8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 9 10 I hereby certify that the foregoing Status Report regarding Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motion to Alter or Amend the Court’s Order was filed with the Clerk of the 11 Court on August 28, 2017, using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to the following: Sarah Moum. 12/s/Edward A. Wicklund 13 Edward A. Wicklund 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2 28

ORDER granting [23] Motion to Amend the Court's Order. It is further ordered that this Court's Order [22] is vacated in part and to the extent that the prior Order determined the ALJ erred in considering Petitioner's past work in her credibility determination. It is further ordered that the decision of the ALJ is affirmed. The Clerk of Court is directed to reopen the case, enter judgment in favor of the Commissioner, and then close the case. Signed by Magistrate Judge D Thomas Ferraro on 10/23/2017.

Case 4:15-cv-00221-DTF Document 26 Filed 10/24/17 Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Katherine Carlene Garrett, No. CV-15-00221-TUC-DTF 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 13 Defendant. 14 15 Before the Court is the Commissioner’s motion seeking to alter or amend the 16 Court’s Order remanding the matter to the Commissioner. (Doc. 23.) The motion is fully 17 briefed. (Doc. 24.) For the reasons set forth herein, the motion will be granted and the 18 decision of the Commissioner will be affirmed. 19 The Commissioner’s Motion to Amend 20 Alteration or amendment of a judgment under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of 21 Civil Procedure is appropriate where the court committed clear error or made an initial 22 decision that was manifestly unjust. Rule 59(e), FED.R.CIV.P. Here, the Commissioner 23 argues that the Court’s prior Order was clearly erroneous because the Administrative Law 24 Judge’s (ALJ) credibility determination was consistent with newly enacted SSR 16-3p 25 and, even if it were not, any error by the ALJ in rendering her credibility determination 26 was harmless. Doc. 23 at pp. 2-3. The Commissioner argues that the ALJ properly 27 considered the reason that Petitioner left her prior employment (she was laid off) because 28 the reason that Petitioner left her prior employment is relevant to symptom evaluation. Id. Case 4:15-cv-00221-DTF Document 26 Filed 10/24/17 Page 2 of 8 1 at p. 3. Petitioner argues that since her prior employment was performed before her 2 amended on-set date this prior employment "say[s] little about [her] work-related 3 functioning during the period at issue" and the Court was correct in determining the ALJ 4 erred in considering Petitioner’s prior work in her credibility assessment. Doc. 24 at p. 2. 5 As pointed out by the Commissioner, in evaluating symptom complaints the 6 regulations direct the agency to consider information about a claimant’s prior work. 20 7 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) ("We will consider all of the evidence presented, including 8 information about your prior work record…"). Here, the evidence establishes that 9 Petitioner ceased working for reasons unrelated to her impairments and that she ceased 10 working because she was laid off. See e.g., AR 295, 298. The Court agrees with the 11 Commissioner that the reason Petitioner ceased her past employment is relevant to 12 symptom evaluation because it is relevant to whether Petitioner’s symptoms kept her 13 from working – which they did not. It follows that the ALJ’s consideration of such in her 14 decision was not error. Indeed, Petitioner testified at the June 2013 hearing that she 15 continues to search on line for work and that she believes that she could perform a data 16 entry position. AR 46. 17 In light of the foregoing, the Court determines that it committed clear error in its 18 prior decision and that the ALJ’s credibility determination did not run afoul of SSR 16-19 3p. The Court affirms its statement in its Order that "[b]ut for the foregoing error the 20 ALJ’s credibility determination would have been affirmed." Doc. 22 at p. 6. The 21 Commissioner’s motion (Doc. 24) will be granted and the ALJ’s adverse credibility 22 determination will be affirmed. 23 Because the Commissioner asks the Court to affirm the ALJ’s decision and the 24 Court’s prior Order did not address the two other grounds raised by Petitioner, the Court 25 now addresses the other two claims of error that were raised by Petitioner in her opening 26 brief. 27 The ALJ’s Decision 28 The Commissioner’s final decision must be affirmed if it is supported by-2-Case 4:15-cv-00221-DTF Document 26 Filed 10/24/17 Page 3 of 8 1 substantial evidence and is free of legal error. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Meanel v. Apfel, 172 2 F.3d 1111, 1113 (9th Cir. 1999). "Substantial evidence means more than a mere scintilla 3 but less than a preponderance; it is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might 4 accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Meanel, 172 F.3d at 1113 (quoting Andrews 5 v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 1995)). "[T]he key question is not whether there 6 is substantial evidence that could support a finding of disability, but whether there is 7 substantial evidence to support the Commissioner’s actual finding that claimant is not 8 disabled." Jamerson v. Chater, 112 F.3d 1064, 1067 (9th Cir. 1997). 9 Weight Assigned to the Opinion of the Treating Physician 10 Petitioner claims the ALJ erred in assigning little weight to the opinion of treating 11 physician Dr. Gramstad. Doc. 19 at p. 1. Petitioner argues the ALJ erred in rejecting Dr. 12 Gramstad’s opinion on the grounds that his opinion was inconsistent with her testimony 13 that she would still be able to perform work as a data entry person. Id. at pp. 8-9. 14 Petitioner also argues that the ALJ’s reliance on Dr. Malak’s opinion to reject Dr. 15 Gramstad’s opinion was error. Id. at p. 11. The Commissioner argues against Petitioner’s 16 claims of error. Doc. 20 at pp. 9-14. 17 "Generally, the opinion of a treating physician must be given more weight than the 18 opinion of an examining physician, and the opinion of an examining physician must be 19 afforded more weight than the opinion of a reviewing physician." Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 20 F.3d 1154, 1160 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, 1202 (9th 21 Cir. 2001); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)). "If a treating physician’s opinion is well-supported 22 by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostics and is not inconsistent with 23 the other substantial evidence in [the] case record, [it will be given] controlling weight." 24 Id. (quoting Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 631 (9th Cir. 2007)). "To reject an 25 uncontradicted opinion of a treating physician, the ALJ must provide'clear and 26 convincing reasons that are supported by substantial evidence.’" Id. at 1160-61 (quoting 27 Bayless v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1216 (9th Cir. 2005)). 28 "Even if a treating physician’s opinion is contradicted, the ALJ may not simply-3-Case 4:15-cv-00221-DTF Document 26 Filed 10/24/17 Page 4 of 8 1 disregard it." Id. at 1161. An ALJ is required to consider the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. 2 § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) in determining how much weight to afford the treating physician’s 3 medical opinion. Id. (citing Orn, 495 F.3d at 631; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)). "In many 4 cases a treating source’s medical opinion will be entitled to the greatest weight and 5 should be adopted, even if it does not meet the test for controlling weight." Ghanim, 763 6 F.3d at 1161 (quoting Orn, 495 F.3d at 631). "An ALJ may only reject a treating 7 physician’s contradicted opinions by providing'specific and legitimate reasons that are 8 supported by substantial evidence.’" Id. (quoting Ryan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 528 F.3d 9 1194, 1198 (9th Cir. 2008)). (Additional citations omitted.) 10 Here, the Court determines that the ALJ provided specific and legitimate reasons 11 supported by substantial evidence to reject Dr. Gramstad’s opinion. To start, the 12 inconsistency of an opinion with the claimant’s activities is a valid reason to discount the 13 opinion. Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 856 (9th Cir. 2001). Dr. Gramstad opined 14 that Petitioner could sit for only four hours in an eight hour workday. AR 400. As pointed 15 out by the Commissioner however, Petitioner testified to sitting for up to eight (8) hours 16 in her recliner. AR 26, 54. Also, as mentioned above, Petitioner testified at the June 2013 17 hearing that she still conducts on line job searches and believes that she could work in 18 jobs that require mostly sitting. AR 46-47. 19 Additionally, inconsistency with a claimant’s own allegations is also a valid 20 reason to discount a physician’s opinion. Rollins, 261 F.3d at 856 ("Rollins herself has 21 never claimed to have any problems with many of the conditions and activities that Dr. 22 Young instructed her to avoid.") Here, Dr. Gramstad opined that Petitioner’s 23 concentration would be constantly interfered with. AR 400. However, there is no 24 indication that Petitioner has alleged difficulties with concentration. See, e.g., AR 227 25 (On her adult function report Petitioner reported being able to concentrate "for a long 26 time.") At bottom, Dr. Gramstad’s opinion that Petitioner is unable to work is 27 contradicted by Petitioner’s testimony and belief that she can perform sedentary work. 28 The ALJ also rejected Dr. Gramstad’s opinion because his assessed limitations-4-Case 4:15-cv-00221-DTF Document 26 Filed 10/24/17 Page 5 of 8 1 were put forth on a check-the-box form. AR 26. An ALJ may permissibly reject check-2 the-box reports that do not contain any explanation of the bases of their conclusions. 3 Molina v. Astrue, 246 F.3d 1195, 1202 (9th Cir. 2001) ("[T]he regulations give more 4 weight to opinions that are explained than to those that are not…"). "The ALJ need not 5 accept the opinion of any physician, including a treating physician, if that opinion is 6 brief, conclusory, and inadequately supported by clinical findings." Thomas v. Barnhart, 7 278 F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Matney v. Sullivan, 981 F.2d 1019 (9th Cir. 8 1992)). Dr. Gramstand’s opinion was put forth on a primarily check-the-box form with 9 no supporting reasoning, clinical findings, or explanation for his ultimate assessment that 10 petitioner was physically incapable for working an 8 hour day, 5 days a week on a 11 sustained basis. AR 401. The ALJ’s reliance on this reason for assigning little weight to 12 Dr. Gramstad’s opinion was proper. 13 The ALJ gave the greatest weight to the opinion of state agency medical 14 consultant, Dr. Malak, who opined that Petitioner had the RFC to perform sedentary 15 work. AR 26. The opinion of a non-treating or non-examining physician may serve as 16 substantial evidence when the opinion is consistent with independent clinical findings or 17 other evidence in the record. Thomas, 278 F.3d at 957. The ALJ does not err in granting 18 the greatest weight to non-examining physician opinions when valid reasons are given to 19 reject other medical opinions in the record. See, e.g., Morgan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. 20 Admin., 169 F.3d 595, 600 (9th Cir. 1999) (Rejecting the petitioner’s argument that the 21 ALJ erred in rejecting the opinions of treating physicians in favor of a non-examining 22 medical advisor "because the ALJ gave specific reasons, supported by the record, for 23 rejecting the opinions of the treating psychiatrist and examining psychologist.") Here, Dr. 24 Malak opined that Petitioner had the residual functional capacity to perform sedentary 25 work. AR 386. Petitioner argues that Dr. Malak’s opinion, rendered on April 10, 2012 26 (prior to the January 30, 2013 amended onset date), cannot serve as substantial evidence 27 because Dr. Malak did not have an opportunity to review an August 2012 MRI that was 28 performed after her April 2012 RFC assessment. However, consultative examiner Dr.-5-Case 4:15-cv-00221-DTF Document 26 Filed 10/24/17 Page 6 of 8 1 Knievel did review Petitioner’s August 2012 MRI and assessed no functional limitations. 2 AR 405. Therefore, even though Dr. Malak did not review post-opinion medical evidence 3 this does not render her opinion contrary to the record. Additionally, Dr. Gramstad’s 4 opinion, like Dr. Malak’s opinion, was rendered prior to Petitioner’s amended onset date 5 and there is no indication that Dr. Gramstad reviewed Petitioner’s August 2012 MRI 6 prior to rendering his September 14, 2012 opinion. AR 400-401. Finally, as noted by the 7 ALJ in her decision, records of three visits to the emergency room by Petitioner in April 8 and May 2013 because of reports of back pain show Petitioner has normal range of 9 motion and strength, an x-ray of the lumbar spine showed only mild findings and 10 Petitioner was reported as being in no acute distress. AR 24-25. 11 On balance, the ALJ’s decision to assign little weight to Dr. Gramstad’s opinion is 12 supported by substantial evidence. 13 Step Four Determination 14 The ALJ determined that Petitioner could perform her past work as a 15 receptionist/data entry person, DOT 237.367-010, as generally performed and as actually 16 performed by Petitioner. AR 27. Petitioner argues the ALJ erred in determining that she 17 could perform the job of "data entry" and in formulating an incomplete hypothetical to 18 the vocational expert (VE) because the hypothetical failed to include a limitation for 19 reclining during the workday. Doc. 19 at p. 17. The Commissioner argues reclining is an 20 unsupported limitation and the ALJ need only include credible limitations in the RFC and 21 hypotheticals posed to a VE. Doc. 20 at p. 17. Petitioner did not discuss this claim of 22 error in her reply brief. Doc. 21. 23 At step four the claimant has the burden to prove that she cannot perform her prior 24 relevant work either as actually performed or as generally performed in the national 25 economy. Carmickle v. Comm’r, 533 F.3d 1155, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008). "An ALJ must 26 propound a hypothetical to a VE that is based on medical assumptions supported by 27 substantial evidence in the record that reflects all the claimant’s limitations." Osenbrock 28 v. Apfel, 240 F.3d 1157, 1165 (9th Cir. 2001). "The hypothetical should be'accurate,-6-Case 4:15-cv-00221-DTF Document 26 Filed 10/24/17 Page 7 of 8 1 detailed, and supported by the medical record.’" Id. (quoting Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 2 1097, 1101 (9th Cir. 1999)). An ALJ need only include credible limitations in the RFC 3 and hypothetical question to a vocational expert. Batson v. Comm’r of the Soc. Sec. 4 Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1197 (9th Cir. 2004). 5 First, the DOT code referenced by the ALJ in her decision is for a receptionist 6 occupation and not a data entry occupation. AR 27. Accordingly, the Court rejects 7 Petitioner’s claim that the ALJ erred in determining that she could perform the past 8 occupation of "data entry." Again, as set forth above, Petitioner testified that she believed 9 she could perform a data entry job. AR 52. Additionally, the Court determines the ALJ 10 did not err in failing to include a reclining limitation in her hypothetical to the VE. An 11 ALJ need only include credible limitations in the RFC and hypothetical questions to a VE 12 and a claimant does not establish that an ALJ’s RFC determination is incorrect by simply 13 restating his arguments that the ALJ improperly discounted certain evidence when the 14 record demonstrates that the ALJ properly rejected that evidence. Batson, 359 F.3d at 15 1197. See also, Osenbrock, 240 F.3d at 1165 ("It is, however, proper for an ALJ to limit a 16 hypothetical to those impairments that are supported by substantial evidence in the 17 record.") Here, Petitioner is asserting error based upon a claimed limitation (reclining) 18 that the Court determines the ALJ properly determined was not supported. The ALJ did 19 not err in failing to pose a hypothetical question that contained a limitation for reclining. 20 The ALJ did not err in her step four determination. 21 Conclusion 22 For the foregoing reasons the Commissioner’s motion (Doc. 23) will be granted 23 and the decision of the ALJ affirmed. 24 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Commissioner’s motion (Doc. 23) is 25 granted. 26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court’s Order (Doc. 22) is vacated in part 27 and to the extent that the prior Order determined the ALJ erred in considering Petitioner’s 28 past work in her credibility determination.-7-Case 4:15-cv-00221-DTF Document 26 Filed 10/24/17 Page 8 of 8 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the decision of the ALJ is affirmed. The 2 Clerk of the Court is directed to reopen the case, enter judgment in favor of the 3 Commissioner, and then close the case. 4 Dated this 23rd day of October, 2017. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28-8-

CLERK'S JUDGMENT - IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that pursuant to the Courts Order filed October 24, 2017, the Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is AFFIRMED. Judgment is entered in favor of the Commissioner and this action is hereby terminated.

Case 4:15-cv-00221-DTF Document 27 Filed 10/24/17 Page 1 of 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Katherine Carlene Garrett, NO. CV-15-00221-TUC-DTF 10 Plaintiff, JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE 11 v. 12 Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 13 Defendant. 14 15 Decision by Court. This action came for consideration before the Court. The 16 issues have been considered and a decision has been rendered. 17 IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that pursuant to the Court’s Order filed 18 October 24, 2017, the Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is AFFIRMED. 19 Judgment is entered in favor of the Commissioner and this action is hereby terminated. 20 Brian D. Karth District Court Executive/Clerk of Court 21 22 October 24, 2017 s/Becky Ruiz 23 By Deputy Clerk 24 25 26 27 28

Interested in this case?

Sign up to receive real-time updates
Last full docket sheet refresh: 393 days ago. Refresh now
#
Datesort arrow up
Description
1
05/27/2015
COMPLAINT filed by Katherine Carlene Garrett.
1
Civil Cover Sheet
2
Exhibit
3
Letter to Clerk)(DLC
3 Attachments
2
05/27/2015
APPLICATION for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis by Katherine Carlene Garrett.
3
05/27/2015
SUMMONS Submitted by Katherine Carlene Garrett.
1
Summons
2
Summons)(DLC
2 Attachments
4
05/27/2015
This case has been assigned to the Honorable D. Thomas Ferraro. All future pleadings or documents should bear the correct case number: 4:15-CV-00221-TUC-DTF. Magistrate Election form attached.
5
05/27/2015
MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Edward A. Wicklund by Katherine Carlene Garrett.
1
Letter to Clerk
1 Attachment
6
05/28/2015
*Document was prematurely filed in case. All associated information with the entry has been removed. NEF regenerated on 5/28/2015
7
05/28/2015
SCHEDULING ORDER, parties must fully comply with the deadlines and procedures. Signed by Magistrate Judge D Thomas Ferraro on 5/27/2015. (See Order for Details.)
8
05/28/2015
ORDER granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, without prepayment of costs or fees or the necessity of giving security. Plaintiff shall be responsible for service of the summons and complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge D Thomas Ferraro on 5/27/2015.
9
05/29/2015
Summons Issued as to Carolyn W Colvin, US Attorney General, and US Attorney's Office. *** IMPORTANT: When printing the summons, select "Document and stamps" or "Document and comments" for the seal to appear on the document.
1
Summons
2
Summons)(FKD
2 Attachments
06/02/2015
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 35, receipt number TUC022608 as to Edward Allen Wicklund. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (Text entry; no document attached.)
10
06/02/2015
ORDER pursuant to General Order 09-08 granting 5 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. Counsel is advised that they are limited to two (2) additional e-mail addresses in their District of Arizona User Account. (BAS) (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.)
06/12/2015
NOTICE of request for e-notices by J. Cole Hernandez. (Text entry; no document attached.)
11
06/16/2015
NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Sarah Moum appearing for Carolyn W Colvin.
12
06/22/2015
Agreement to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction. Party agrees to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.
13
06/25/2015
Magistrate Election Form Deadline.
14
07/02/2015
Agreement to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction. Party agrees to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.
15
07/02/2015
Minute Order: In accordance with 28 USC 636(c), all parties have voluntarily consented to have Magistrate Judge Ferraro conduct all further proceedings in this case, including trial and entry of final judgment, and conduct all post-judgment proceedings, with direct review by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, if an appeal is filed. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.
16
08/07/2015
ANSWER to 1 Complaint by Carolyn W Colvin.
17
08/07/2015
NOTICE of Filing Certified Copy of Administrative Transcript re: 16 Answer to Complaint filed by Carolyn W Colvin.
1
Certification Page
2
Court Transcript Index
3
Documents Related to Administrative Process Including Transcript of Oral Hearing, if applicable
4
Payment Documents and Decisions
5
Jurisdictional Documents and Notices
6
Non Disability Related Development
7
Disability Related Development
8
Medical Records
8 Attachments
18
08/11/2015
SERVICE EXECUTED filed by Katherine Carlene Garrett: Proof of Service re: Summons, Complaint, and Scheduling Order upon US Attorney, OGC, Attorney General on 6/8/15.
19
10/06/2015
OPENING BRIEF by Katherine Carlene Garrett.
1
Certificate of Service
1 Attachment
20
11/05/2015
RESPONSE BRIEF by Carolyn W Colvin.
21
11/13/2015
REPLY BRIEF by Katherine Carlene Garrett.
1
Certificate of Service
1 Attachment
22
09/07/2016
ORDER that the decision of the ALJ is reversed and this case is remanded for further consideration consistent with SSR 16-3p. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. Signed by Magistrate Judge D Thomas Ferraro on 9/7/2016.
23
10/05/2016
MOTION to Amend/Correct 22 Order by Carolyn W Colvin.
1
Text of Proposed Order
1 Attachment
24
11/02/2016
RESPONSE in Opposition re: 23 MOTION to Amend/Correct 22 Order filed by Katherine Carlene Garrett.
25
08/28/2017
STATUS REPORT regarding Plaintiff's Response to Motion to Alter or Amend the Court's Order by Katherine Carlene Garrett.
26
10/24/2017
ORDER granting [23] Motion to Amend the Court's Order. It is further ordered that this Court's Order [22] is vacated in part and to the extent that the prior Order determined the ALJ erred in considering Petitioner's past work in her credibility determination. It is further ordered that the decision of the ALJ is affirmed. The Clerk of Court is directed to reopen the case, enter judgment in favor of the Commissioner, and then close the case. Signed by Magistrate Judge D Thomas Ferraro on 10/23/2017.
27
10/24/2017
CLERK'S JUDGMENT - IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that pursuant to the Courts Order filed October 24, 2017, the Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is AFFIRMED. Judgment is entered in favor of the Commissioner and this action is hereby terminated.
Would you like this case removed from DocketBird? Request removal.