Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02957/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02957-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WEBBER,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

 BARNHART,

Defendant. /

No. C04-02957 MJJ

ORDER

On December 13, 2004, Plaintiff filed a motion entitled “Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary

Judgment or Remand” (Docket No. 10) and also a memorandum of points and authorities in support

of the motion (Docket No. 11). The Court has determined that supplemental briefing is necessary

because Defendant has not addressed Plaintiff’s argument located on page 22 of the memorandum. 

In that argument, Plaintiff contends that the ALJ is required, under SSR 96-9p, to cite examples of

occupations or jobs that an individual can do when her non-exertional limitations create “more than

a slight impact on the individual’s ability to perform the full range of sedentary work.” The Court

ORDERS Defendant to submit a supplemental brief specifically addressing whether the ALJ made a

determination as to whether Plaintiff's non-exertional limitations created more than a "slight-impact"

on Plaintiff's ability to work, and if the ALJ did so, whether the ALJ adequately followed the SSR

96-9p procedures.

Case 3:04-cv-02957-MJJ Document 19 Filed 02/10/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

Defendant’s brief shall be due two weeks from the filing of this order, and Plaintiff will have

one week after the Defendant’s due date to respond. Neither Plaintiff and Defendant’s papers shall

exceed five pages in length.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February ___, 2006 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10

Case 3:04-cv-02957-MJJ Document 19 Filed 02/10/06 Page 2 of 2