From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Quevedo v. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FRESNO DIVISION
Aug 23, 2012
Case No. 1:12-cv-00090-SKO (E.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2012)

Opinion

Case No. 1:12-cv-00090-SKO

08-23-2012

THOMAS QUEVEDO, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

SENGTHIENE BOSAVANH, ESQ as authorized via email) Attorney for Plaintiff BENJAMIN B. WAGNER United States Attorney TOVA D. WOLKING Special Assistant United States Attorney


BENJAMIN B. WAGNER

United States Attorney

DONNA L. CALVERT

Acting Regional Chief Counsel, Region IX

Social Security Administration

TOVA WOLKING, CSBN 259782

Special Assistant United States Attorney

Attorney for Defendant

JOINT STIPULATION FOR VOLUNTARY

REMAND PURSUANT TO SENTENCE

FOUR OF 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) AND TO

ENTRY OF JUDGMENT


ORDER

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties, through their undersigned attorneys, and with the approval of the Court, that the Commissioner of Social Security has agreed to a voluntary remand of this case for further administrative action pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The purpose of the remand is to offer Plaintiff a new hearing and decision.

Upon remand to the defendant, the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review will remand this case to an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) and direct him or her to update the record regarding Plaintiff's impairments in accordance with Social Security Regulations and Rulings.

The ALJ will hold a new administrative hearing and consider Plaintiff's residual functional capacity based on the updated record, including Plaintiff's Veteran's Administration (VA) disability rating decision dated September 14, 2010. If warranted, the ALJ will secure supplemental evidence from a vocational expert to determine whether there are a significant number of jobs in the national economy that Plaintiff can perform given his vocational factors of age, education, and work experience, as well as his updated residual functional capacity.

The parties further request that the Clerk of the Court be directed to enter final judgment in favor of Plaintiff, and against Defendant, Commissioner of Social Security, reversing the final decision of the Commissioner and remanding for additional administrative development.

Respectfully submitted,

_________________

SENGTHIENE BOSAVANH, ESQ.

as authorized via email)

(

Attorney for Plaintiff

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER

United States Attorney

By: _________________

TOVA D. WOLKING

Special Assistant United States Attorney

Attorneys for Defendant

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.

__________________________________

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Quevedo v. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FRESNO DIVISION
Aug 23, 2012
Case No. 1:12-cv-00090-SKO (E.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2012)
Case details for

Quevedo v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:THOMAS QUEVEDO, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE Commissioner of Social…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FRESNO DIVISION

Date published: Aug 23, 2012

Citations

Case No. 1:12-cv-00090-SKO (E.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2012)