Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00117/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00117-5/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 (DIWW)

---

1 

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

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER 

United States Attorney 

DEBORAH L. STACHEL 

Acting Regional Chief Counsel, Region IX 

Social Security Administration 

JEFFREY CHEN, CSBN 260516 

Special Assistant United States Attorney 

 Social Security Administration 

160 Spear Street, Suite 800 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Telephone: (415) 977-8939 

Facsimile: (415) 744-0134 

Email: Jeffrey.Chen@ssa.gov 

Attorneys for Defendant 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SACRAMENTO DIVISION 

LINDA DARLENE DURNALL, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, 

Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 

 Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Civil No. 2:15-cv-00117-CMK 

STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR 

VOLUNTARY REMAND PURSUANT TO 

SENTENCE FOUR OF 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) 

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between Linda Durnall (Plaintiff) and Carolyn 

W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security (the Commissioner or Defendant), through 

their respective counsel of record, that this action be remanded for further administrative action 

pursuant to section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. section 405(g), 

sentence four. 

 On remand, the Appeals Council will remand the case to an administrative law judge 

(ALJ) for a new hearing and decision. The Appeals Council will instruct the ALJ to reevaluate 

the medical evidence, including, but not limited to, all medical-source opinion evidence, and 

Case 2:15-cv-00117-DMC Document 21 Filed 01/04/16 Page 1 of 2
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

explain the weight given to the opinion evidence in accordance with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527, and 

Social Security Rulings (SSR) 96-2p and 96-5p. In addition, the ALJ shall evaluate the relevant 

lay witness testimony and explain the weight given to this statement in accordance with SSR 06-

3p. The ALJ shall re-determine Plaintiff’s RFC and issue a new decision. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

Date: November 25, 2015 CERNEY KREUZE & LOTT, LLP

By: /s/ Shellie Lott* 

SHELLIE LOTT 

* By email authorization on Nov. 25, 2015 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

Date: November 25, 2015 BENJAMIN B. WAGNER 

United States Attorney 

By: /s/ Jeffrey Chen 

JEFFREY CHEN 

Special Assistant United States Attorney 

Attorneys for Defendant 

ORDER 

APPROVED AND SO ORDERED. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

(DOC. 12) IS DENIED AS MOOT. THE CLERK OF THE COURT IS DIRECTED TO 

ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE THIS FILE. 

Dated: December 31, 2015 

Case 2:15-cv-00117-DMC Document 21 Filed 01/04/16 Page 2 of 2