LANE v. ASTRUE
| JANICE R. LANE |
| MICHAEL J. ASTRUE |
| SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION |
| 1:2011cv00474 |
| June 16, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina |
| NCMD Office |
| Forsyth |
| WILLIAM L. OSTEEN |
| Disability Insurance |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 405 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
13
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by CHIEF JUDGE WILLIAM L. OSTEEN JR. on 6/16/2014; that the Commissioner's decision finding no disability from September 1, 2005 to July 6, 2009 is REVERSED, that Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment R eversing Judgment of the Commissioner or Remanding the Cause for Rehearing (Doc. 8 ) is GRANTED IN PART as to Plaintiff's request for a remand for further proceedings and DENIED IN PART as to Plaintiff's request for an order awarding benefits, that Defendant's Motion for Remand Under Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (Doc. 10 ) is GRANTED, and that this action is remanded for further administrative proceedings which shall include (1) reconsideration o f Plaintiff's educational level; (2) administration of a current IQ test; and (3) a specific discussion of whether Plaintiff's decreased intellectual functioning meets or equals the criteria of any of the listed impairments in light of the new IQ test and any subsequent testimony and evidence. (Sheets, Jamie)
|
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.
