Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00905/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00905-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN P. KUHNEL, ) 1:05-CV-0905 AWI 

)

Plaintiff, )

) STIPULATION AND ORDER

v. ) FOR REMAND PURSUANT TO

) SENTENCE FOUR OF 42 U.S.C.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, ) § 405(g), and ENTRY OF JUDGMENT 

Commissioner of Social ) IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF AND AGAINST

Security, ) DEFENDANT

)

Defendant. ) 

______________________________)

____________________________________________________________________

On August 23, 2006, the parties filed the following stipulation for judgment and remand:

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the parties, through

their respective counsel of record, that this action be remanded to

the Commissioner of Social Security for further administrative

action pursuant to section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, as

amended, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), sentence four. 

On remand, the Appeals Counsel will instruct an Administrative

Law Judge to take the following action:

1. Update the medical record with existing evidence from the

treating sources to include medical source statements;

2. Consider and weigh the opinions provided by the state

agency medical consultants in accordance with SSR 96-6p;

3. Further consider the credibility of the claimant’s

subjective complaints in accordance with SSR 96-7p; and,

Case 1:05-cv-00905-AWI-SAB Document 20 Filed 08/25/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4. Consider the lay witness evidence provided by the

claimant’s wife as required by 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(b) and

416.927(b); 

 5. In addition, the ALJ will re-evaluate the claimant’s

residual functional capacity; 

6. Reassess whether the claimant can return to his past

relevant work; and, 

7. If warranted, obtain supplemental vocational expert

evidence. 

The parties further request that the Clerk of the Court be

directed to enter a final judgment in favor of plaintiff and against

defendant, Jo Ann B. Barnhart, Commissioner of Social Security,

reversing the final decision of the Commissioner.

 Respectfully submitted,

Dated: August 22, 2006 /s/ Harvey P. Sackett

(As authorized via facsimile)

HARVEY P. SACKETT

Attorney for Plaintiff

 

Dated: August 23 , 2006 McGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

/s/ Kimberly A. Gaab

KIMBERLY A. GAAB

Assistant U.S. Attorney

Based on the above stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 24, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00905-AWI-SAB Document 20 Filed 08/25/06 Page 2 of 2