Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security

Justia Dockets & Filings Second Circuit New York Eastern District Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security

Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security

Plaintiff:	Gail M. Jones
Defendant:	Commissioner of Social Security
Case Number:	1:2010cv05831
Filed:	December 13, 2010
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Office:	Brooklyn Office
Presiding Judge:	Raymond J. Dearie
Nature of Suit:	Social Security: DIWC/DIWW
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
August 22, 2012	Filing 26 MEMORANDUM & ORDER: Defendant's 18 Rule 12(c) motion is denied, and plaintiff's 20 cross-motion is granted to the extent that the case is remanded for further development of the record. On remand, the ALJ should do the following: ( 1) apply the treating physician rule in determining plaintiff's RFC; (2) "give good reasons" if he does not grant the treating physicians' opinions controlling weight; (3) develop the record by obtaining legible copies from Dr. La dopaulos and records from Jones's physical therapist and current psychologist; (4) allow any medical expert ample time to examine plaintiff's entire record before opining; (5) assess plaintiff's credibility using the proper § 404 factors and explain his analysis; and (6) pose an accurate hypothetical to the vocational expert. The decision of the ALJ is hereby vacated, and the case remanded in accordance with the foregoing. Forwarded for judgment. Ordered by Judge Raymond J. Dearie on 8/21/2012. (Chee, Alvin)

Date Filed

Document Text

August 22, 2012

Filing 26 MEMORANDUM & ORDER: Defendant's 18 Rule 12(c) motion is denied, and plaintiff's 20 cross-motion is granted to the extent that the case is remanded for further development of the record. On remand, the ALJ should do the following: ( 1) apply the treating physician rule in determining plaintiff's RFC; (2) "give good reasons" if he does not grant the treating physicians' opinions controlling weight; (3) develop the record by obtaining legible copies from Dr. La dopaulos and records from Jones's physical therapist and current psychologist; (4) allow any medical expert ample time to examine plaintiff's entire record before opining; (5) assess plaintiff's credibility using the proper § 404 factors and explain his analysis; and (6) pose an accurate hypothetical to the vocational expert. The decision of the ALJ is hereby vacated, and the case remanded in accordance with the foregoing. Forwarded for judgment. Ordered by Judge Raymond J. Dearie on 8/21/2012. (Chee, Alvin)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the New York Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Commissioner of Social Security
Represented By:	SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION - GENERIC
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Gail M. Jones
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?