YORK v. ASTRUE
JAMES R. YORK |
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE |
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION |
1:2010cv00665 |
August 30, 2010 |
US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina |
NCMD Office |
Moore |
Disability Insurance |
42 U.S.C. ยง 205 |
None |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 14 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE. Signed by L. PATRICK AULD on 2/3/2014, recommending that Defendant's decision finding no disability be reversed and that the matter be remanded under sentence four o f 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for further administrative proceedings: 1) to re-evaluate the medical opinion of Dr. David S. Jones; 2) if such re-evaluation results in the inclusion of additional limitations in Plaintiff's RFC, to assess whether Pla intiff retained the ability to return to his past relevant work prior to his last date insured; and 3) if Plaintiff could not have returned to such work, to consult a VE to determine the impact of those additional limitations on the number of availab le jobs that Plaintiff could have performed. As a result, Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Docket Entry 11 ) should be denied and Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry 9 ) should be granted in part and denied in part, in that the Court should remand the case for further administrative proceedings, but should not order an immediate award of benefits. (Daniel, J) |
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 North Carolina Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.