Batten v. Colvin

Batten v. Colvin

Plaintiff:	Christopher Michael Batten
Defendant:	Carolyn W. Colvin
Case Number:	2:2016cv00997
Filed:	January 28, 2016
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
Office:	Charleston Office
County:	Wood
Presiding Judge:	Omar J. Aboulhosn
Presiding Judge:	John T. Copenhaver
Nature of Suit:	Disability Insurance
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 405
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
December 30, 2016	Filing 14 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting and incorporating the 13 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge; granting plaintiff's 8 request for a remand; denying defendant's 9 request to affirm the decision of the Comm issioner; the decision of the Commissioner is reversed; this action is remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for further proceedings which shall include a discussion of why the finding in the RFC assessment that "wo rk environment should not consist of fast-paced production requirements" was omitted from the hypothetical posed to the vocational expert, as well as to explain why the finding by Dr. Spaulding of plaintiff's marked limitations in his ab ility to interact appropriately with supervisors, whose opinion was afforded great weight, need not be included in the RFC assessment, as more fully set forth in the magistrate judge's Proposed Findings and Recommendation. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 12/30/2016. (cc: counsel of record; United States Magistrate Judge) (taq)

Date Filed

Document Text

December 30, 2016

Filing 14 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting and incorporating the 13 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge; granting plaintiff's 8 request for a remand; denying defendant's 9 request to affirm the decision of the Comm issioner; the decision of the Commissioner is reversed; this action is remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for further proceedings which shall include a discussion of why the finding in the RFC assessment that "wo rk environment should not consist of fast-paced production requirements" was omitted from the hypothetical posed to the vocational expert, as well as to explain why the finding by Dr. Spaulding of plaintiff's marked limitations in his ab ility to interact appropriately with supervisors, whose opinion was afforded great weight, need not be included in the RFC assessment, as more fully set forth in the magistrate judge's Proposed Findings and Recommendation. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 12/30/2016. (cc: counsel of record; United States Magistrate Judge) (taq)

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 West Virginia Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Batten v. Colvin
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Christopher Michael Batten
Represented By:	Jan Dils
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 ]
Defendant: Carolyn W. Colvin
Represented By:	Eric P. Kressman
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?