Jemison v. Colvin
Order entered that the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiffs claim for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits income be REVERSED and REMANDED.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sonja F. Bivins on 8/25/2014. (mjn)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
* Civil Action No: 2:13-00308-B
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Plaintiff Chester Jemison (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) brings
this action seeking judicial review of a final decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security denying his claim for a period
of disability and disability insurance benefits under Title II
of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401, et seq.
10, 2014, the parties consented to have the undersigned conduct
any and all proceedings in this case. (Doc. 20).
proceedings and order the entry of judgment in accordance with
28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73.
memoranda of the parties, it is hereby ORDERED that the decision
of the Commissioner be REVERSED and REMANDED.
Plaintiff protectively filed an application for a period of
disability and disability insurance benefits income on September
8, 2009. (Doc. 15 at 1; Tr. 105-08).
Plaintiff alleges that he
has been disabled since June 19, 2009, due to his back injury,
carpal tunnel syndrome, feet problems, arthritis in his knees,
and high cholesterol. (Tr. 144).
Plaintiff’s applications were
denied and upon timely request, he was granted an administrative
(hereinafter “ALJ”) on May 9, 2011.
The hearing was attended by
Plaintiff, his attorney, and a vocational expert (hereinafter
“VE”). (Id., at
(Id., at 13-26).
The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request
for review on January 25, 2013. (Id., at 1-3).
Thus, the ALJ’s
decision dated June 20, 2011, became the final decision of the
The parties waived oral argument (Docs. 22, 23),
and agree that this case is now ripe for judicial review and is
properly before this Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and
Issues on Appeal
A. Whether the ALJ erred in assigning controlling
weight to the opinion of a physical therapist,
which is not an “acceptable medical source”
pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513.
B. Whether the ALJ erred in rejecting the opinions
of Plaintiff’s treating physician and the
III. Factual Background
Plaintiff was born on March 9, 1968, and was 44 years of
age at the time of his administrative hearing on August 30,
2012. (Tr. 63).
Plaintiff testified at the hearing that he has
Plaintiff, he performed roofing and waterproofing duties until
June 20, 2011 when he fell 20-30 feet through a roof, hit a
metal bar on the way down, and was rendered unconscious. (Id.,
at 64-66, 341).
As a result of this fall, Plaintiff sustained
multiple injuries, including injury to his pelvic, cervical and
thoracic spine, liver, spleen, ribs, and scalp. (Id., at 198).
Plaintiff underwent medical and surgical procedures including an
additional 13 days.
At the time of his release, Plaintiff had
progressed from a wheelchair to a walker. (Id., at 69-70).
Plaintiff testified that he uses a cane to walk and can
possibly walk about one-third (1/3) of a football field without
his cane, and that he walks “extremely” carefully because his
surgeon informed him that if he falls, his screws will rip out
and because his pelvic plate cannot be repaired again, he would
be rendered permanently unable to walk. (Id., at 69, 76).
Plaintiff contends that he is unable to work based on a
combination of all of the injuries he sustained from the fall
and his ongoing pain. (Id., at 67-68).
According to Plaintiff,
mopping, and is unable to lift a gallon of milk without pain.
Plaintiff testified that he is able to fold laundry. (Id., at
The claimant has the following severe impairments:
history of multiple fall trauma including status
post fracture of pelvic ring with open reduction
internal fixation of pubic synthesis (pelvic ring);
fracture of sacro iliac joint with closed fixation;
C-2 vertebral fracture; fracture of T2 vertebral
end-plate; obesity (“5/9 at 289 lbs[.]”); and
situational depression (20 CFR 404.1520(c)).1
The above about severe combination of impairments
evidence, including signs, symptoms, and laboratory
findings… [T]he undersigned finds this medically
determinable combination of constitutes more than a
The ALJ also determined that Plaintiff has not engaged in
substantial gainful activity since June 11, 2011, and that he
does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that
meets or medically equals any of the listed impairments
contained in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. (Id., at
expected to have caused more than minimal effect on
claimant’s ability to perform basic work related
activities for a continuous period of 12 or more
(Id., at 12).
The ALJ summarized Plaintiff’s medical records as follows:
The medical record of evidence indicated that the
claimant presented to the emergency room June 20,
2011, subsequent to a 20 feet fall through a window
on a roof. The claimant sustained pelvic fractures,
left iliac vein injury, T2 superior endplate
lacerations, multiple rib fractures, left pulmonary
contusion, and left L4 through L5 transverse
process fractures. The claimant underwent open
reduction internal fixation to repair the pelvic
fractures and left sacro-iliac joint. In order to
facilitate healing, the claimant was to remain nonweight bearing for three months. Additionally, the
claimant was noted to be hypertensive and placed on
blood pressure medication with better control… The
claimant was discharged to inpatient rehabilitation
until he progressed sufficiently to be released to
September 2011, the claimant admitted to some
weight bearing before being released to do [so].
Radiographic imaging noted that screws had loosened
as a result of his non-compliance with no weight
bearing. Additionally, claimant was charted as
taking too many narcotics and not as prescribed…
In November 2011, the claimant was noted as making
very slow progress due in part to his obesity
despite counseling as to the need to lose weight.
The claimant was noted to have gained 7 pounds with
a weight of 277 pounds. Upon examination, however,
difficulty using a cane; could ambulate without the
cane albeit poorly; and leaned forward when using
the cane although he was antalgic with a slow gate.
The pelvis was known as completely stable with the
pelvic right in excellent position. The claimant’s
treating physician express for the claimant morbid
obesity would significantly impact the outcome of
the pelvic ring fracture as it shifts the center of
gravity; the increased lordosis of the spine would
compound discomfort; and the claimant did not
perform his home exercises as instructed. X-rays
indicated that the pelvic ring was stable, healed;
the sacro iliac joint was anatomically educed; and
there was no progressive loosening of screws.
On April 12, 2012, the claimant presented for
follow-up. He reported that he quit smoking for the
last few months; and complained of low back pain
with numbness and paresthesias in the medial left
thigh. The claimant was noted as weighing 288
pounds. Upon examination, the claimant was noted to
have three (3) Waddell signs with equivocal
straight leg test bilaterally; antalgic gate on the
left; could walk heels and toes; and could flex and
tenderness was noted upon passive range of motion
of the left hip; tenderness to palpitation midline
LS joint; and no focal weakness. X-rays indicated a
transverse process fracture of the lumbar spine,
but were otherwise unremarkable. The claimant was
noted to have unfortunately reached maximum medical
improvement and that his morbid obesity would
always cause him to have discomfort unless he had
significant weight loss. The claimant was also told
that he needed to continue a much more aggressive
daily exercise program to have any hope of
returning to his previous work…
The claimant presented for continued follow-up on
June 13, 2012. He weighed 296 pounds; complained of
pain at a level 5 out of 10; and denied any adverse
examination, he was noted to have moderate pain and
stiffness with manual stretching of the hips; 5/5
upper extremities; 3-4/5 in his right leg and 4/5
in his left leg with equal reflexes. The claimant
had negative straight leg raising; no external
edema; diminished lumbar flexion; normal lumbar
inspection; and tenderness to palpitation of the
cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spines.
consultatively examined claimant at the request of
the State agency. Dr. Harris noted that the
however, the physical examination results indicated
reported pain on full range of motion of the neck,
shoulders, elbows, wrists and hands. The claimant
had a normal grip, normal sensation; and 5/5 motor
extremities. The claimant did have decreased range
of motion of the left hip; + straight leg raising
bilaterally; diffuse tenderness at mid back; equal
reflexes; and could not heal/toe walk or squat and
On July 11, 2012, the claimant continued to
complain of pain, but stated that he was ready for
his functional capacity evaluation. The claimant
complained of pain upon range of motion, but had
bilateral lower extremity strength of 4/5 and upper
extremity strength 4/5 bilaterally. The diagnostic
impression included that the claimant denied any
adverse affects of complications from his treatment
and that his quality of life improved, pain levels
reduced, and daily activity increased due to
current medical regimen… An MRI on July 20, 2012,
indicated some L4-5 bilateral facet hypertrophy and
L5–S1 facet spurring, but no disc protrusion or
neural impingement. X-rays indicated normal verbal
alignment and no fracture or subluxation…
On July 19, 2012, the claimant underwent a
functional capacities evaluation indicated a whole
body impairment of 3% based on a recommended lower
extremity impairment of 7% resulting from the sacro
iliac joint fracture. The claimant was observed
standing and/or walking for 20 minutes at a time
before having to sit down and poor functional
ability with most of the exercises performed. The
claimant could occasionally lift and/or carry 35-40
pounds; frequently lift 20 pounds; and push/pull.
The claimant could sit for up to an hour; stand for
alternately to complete an 8-hour work day. The
claimant could frequently climb stairs and ladders,
reach overhead, and bend or squat…
On August 3, 2012, the claimant returned to his
treating physician with complaints of pain. He
underwent a bilateral L3– 4 lumbar facet joint
block and bilateral L4–5 lumbar facet joint block…
The undersigned notes that the claimant has been
formally diagnosed with obesity, and his medical
records show a repeated pattern of excessive weight
for his height... Therefore, the record supports a
diagnosis of obesity. The undersigned has evaluated
the claimant obesity and accompanying impairment in
accordance with Social Security Ruling 02-1p. This
ruling provides that the undersigned must assess
the effect that obesity has on the claimant’s
ability to perform routine movement and necessary
physical activity within the work environment.
Clearly, the claimant’s obesity affects his ability
to perform some of the physical requirements of
work, as it is likely that his obesity contributes
to his complaints of pain and high blood pressure.
However, there is no evidence that the claimant’s
obesity precludes him from performing work at the
light and sedentary levels of exertion, consistent
with the FCE, as these levels of work activity
would minimize the effect of the claimant’s obesity
on his joints and body systems…
(Id., at 15-18).
The ALJ articulated the weight he accorded to the opinions
of the various medical providers, and the reasons for so doing.
…The functional capacity examination order by the
controlling weight… This FCE assessment is a
claimants functional capacity and more reflective
of his actual functional capacity. The FCE is well
supported by acceptable clinical and laboratory
examination techniques and are not inconsistent
with other evidence in the record.
Greater weight is given to the treatment notes,
clinical findings, and diagnostic test contained
within the treating medical evidence of record,
particularly the records of Dr. Stewart and Dr.
Spruill…, orthopedics specialists. The treating
physicians examined the claimant on a regular and
ongoing basis; were familiar with his overall
history and complaints; monitored his condition.
The treating physicians work with the claimant,
radiographic and laboratory findings. Although the
treating physicians offer no express opinions, the
medical records and the notations contain therein
are consistent with my assessment that the claimant
has the residual functional capacity for at least
light works as described above.
The undersigned gives very little weight to the
residual functional capacity and pain assessment by
Dr. Timberlake... He is a family physician and a
orthopedic surgery. Notably, Dr. Timberlake has
examined claimant only twice and then for the nonorthopedic purposes of sinus problems and elevated
hypertension. He did not have the benefit and
ongoing treating relationship like that of Dr.
Stewart and Dr. Spruill. Therefore, very limited
weight is given to his assessment and only to the
extent that he treated claimant’s hypertension.
The undersigned gives very little weight to the
opinion of the consultative examiner, Dr. Harris.
Although his findings are based upon direct
observation and examination of the claimant, his
inconsistent with his own clinical findings on
examination but more significantly his opinions are
not consistent with the treating medical evidence
or the abilities demonstrated by the claimant at
his functional capacity evaluation just one month
later... No weight is given to his conclusion that
the claimant cannot work as such opinions are
reserved to the Commissioner.
Some weight is given to the assessment of Dr.
Callins, the State agency reviewing
assessment was shortly after
the claimant’s initial
injury and while he was
under orders to be non-weight bearing. Dr. Collins
did not have access to later records or the FCE that
showed later improvement.
(Id., at 19).
the ALJ found as follows:
After careful consideration of the entire record,
the undersigned finds that the claimant has the
residual functional capacity to perform light work
as defined by 20 CFR 404.1567(b). Secondary to the
pelvic and spinal trauma with residual pain, the
claimant should have a seat/stand option; avoid
concentrated exposure to extremes of cold, heath,
humidity, and vibration. He can do no working from
unprotected heights or with hazardous machinery. He
can do occasional stooping, kneeling, crouching,
crawling, and occasional climbing the stairs and
ramps; but no climbing ladders, ropes, or scaffolds
and he can do the occasional bilateral lower
understand, remember and carry-out instructions
sufficient to perform low semi-skilled tasks; and
he can maintain concentration, persistence, and/or
pace for periods of up to two hours sufficient to
perform an 8-hour workday with routine breaks. He
can do low stress work defined as occasional
changes in the work setting; no production rate
pace work rather goal oriented work; and a well
spaced work environment or separate workstation…
(Id., at 14-15).
The ALJ then determined that Plaintiff is unable to perform
his past relevant work and utilizing the testimony of a VE,
Plaintiff is not disabled. (Id., at 21).
A. Standard of Review
In reviewing claims brought under the Act, this Court’s
supported by substantial evidence and 2) whether the correct
legal standards were applied.2 Martin v. Sullivan, 894 F.2d 1520,
1529 (11th Cir. 1990).
A court may not decide the facts anew,
reweigh the evidence, or substitute its judgment for that of the
Commissioner. Sewell v. Bowen, 792 F.2d 1065, 1067 (11th Cir.
The Commissioner’s findings of fact must be affirmed if
they are based upon substantial evidence. Brown v. Sullivan, 921
F.2d 1233, 1235 (11th Cir. 1991); Bloodsworth v. Heckler, 703
F.2d 1233, 1239 (11th Cir. 1983) (holding substantial evidence
This Court’s review of the Commissioner’s application of legal
principles is plenary. Walker v. Bowen, 826 F.2d 996, 999 (11th
exists, a court must view the record as a whole, taking into
Chester v. Bowen, 792 F.2d 129, 131
(11th Cir. 1986); Short v. Apfel, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10163, *4
(S.D. Ala. June 14, 1999).
An individual who applies for Social Security disability
Security regulations provide a five-step sequential evaluation
process for determining if a claimant has proven his disability.3
The claimant must first prove that he or she has not engaged in
substantial gainful activity.
The second step requires the
claimant to prove that he or she has a severe impairment or
combination of impairments. If, at the third step, the claimant
proves that the impairment or combination of impairments meets
automatically found disabled regardless of age, education, or
If the claimant cannot prevail at the third
step, he or she must proceed to the fourth step where the
claimant must prove an inability to perform their past relevant
work. Jones v. Bowen, 810 F.2d 1001, 1005 (11th Cir. 1986). In
evaluating whether the claimant has met this burden, the
examiner must consider the following four factors: (1) objective
medical facts and clinical findings; (2) diagnoses of examining
physicians; (3) evidence of pain; and (4) the claimant’s age,
education and work history. Id.
Once a claimant meets this
burden, it becomes the Commissioner’s burden to prove at the
fifth step that the claimant is capable of engaging in another
claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and
work history. Sryock v. Heckler, 764 F.2d 834, 836 (11th Cir.
1985). If the Commissioner can demonstrate that there are such
jobs the claimant can perform, the claimant must prove inability
to perform those jobs in order to be found disabled. Jones v.
Apfel, 190 F.3d 1224, 1228 (11th Cir. 1999). See also Hale v.
20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1512, 404.1520, 416.912, 416.920.
In this case, Plaintiff has raised two issues on appeal:
(1) whether the ALJ may assign controlling weight to the FCE
physician and the consultative examiner. (Doc. 13 at 1).
issues are connected, and essentially challenge the evidentiary
assessment is supported by substantial evidence.
relationship, whether the opinion is amply supported, whether
Generally, the opinions of examining physicians are given more
Indeed, “[t]he ALJ must generally give the opinion of a treating
physician ‘substantial or considerable weight’ absent a showing
of good cause not to do so.” Newton v. Astrue, 297 Fed. App’x
Bowen, 831 F.2d 1007, 1011 (11th Cir. 1987) (citing Francis v.
Heckler, 749 F.2d 1562, 1564 (11th Cir. 1985)).
880, 883 (11th Cir. 2008); see also Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d
1436, 1440 (11th Cir. 1997)(a treating physician’s opinion must
be given substantial weight unless good cause is shown to the
“[G]ood cause” exists when a treating physician’s opinion
is not bolstered by the evidence, is contrary to the evidence,
or when the treating physician’s opinion is inconsistent with
his or her own medical records.” Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d
1232, 1240-41 (11th Cir. 2004).
And, an ALJ commits reversible
error where he fails to articulate the reason for giving less
Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1159 (llth Cir. 2007) (per
curiam) (the ALJ must accord substantial or considerable weight
to opinion of treating physician unless “good cause” is shown to
That said, it is the ALJ’s duty, as finder of
fact, to choose between conflicting evidence, and he may reject
finding to the contrary. Ellison v. Barnhart, 355 F.3d 1272,
Schweiker, 660 F.2d 1078, 1084 (5th Cir. 1981) (holding that
“the ALJ is free to reject the opinion of any physician when the
evidence supports a contrary conclusion”); Kennedy v. Astrue,
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39492, *22-23, 2010 WL 1643248 (S.D. Ala.
Apr. 21, 2010) (“[I]t is the ALJ’s duty, as finder of fact, to
choose between conflicting evidence[,] and he may reject the
of any physician when the evidence supports a finding
to the contrary.”).
Based upon a careful review of the record,
ALJ’s decision to assign little weight to the opinions of Dr.
Harris and Dr. Timberlake that Plaintiff is totally disabled.
Harris on June 18, 2012, at the request of the Agency.
Dr. Harris conducted a physical examination and found
that Plaintiff walked with a markedly slow stooped gait, that
Plaintiff had range of motion in his neck, shoulders, elbows,
Plaintiff had muscle strength of 5/5 in his upper extremities.
In addition, Plaintiff had a decrease in range of motion in his
left hip, and a full range of motion in his right hip and in
raising bilaterally, had some diffuse tenderness throughout his
midback, was unable to toe and heel walk, squat or arise, and
had 5/5 muscle strength in his lower extremities.
injuries, and that he was currently undergoing physical therapy.
Dr. Harris opined that Plaintiff is totally disabled and unable
to work. (Id.).
Dr. Harris also completed a Medical Source
Statement of Ability to Do Work-Related Activities (Physical)
form in which he concluded that Plaintiff could never lift or
carry up to 10 pounds, and that he could only sit, stand or walk
for five minutes at a time without interruption. (Id., at 334339).
The undersigned notes that Dr. Harris’ findings based on
his physical examination of Plaintiff are not consistent with
and do not support the extreme physical limitations contained in
the Medical Source Statement completed by Dr. Harris, nor his
opinion that Plaintiff is disabled.
Further, there is nothing
physical limitations listed by Dr. Harris.
In fact, Plaintiff’s
treating physician, Dr. Stewart, who had been treating Plaintiff
since June 2011, examined Plaintiff in both February and April
2012, and opined that Plaintiff was capable of returning to
reflects that an MRI taken on July 20, 2012 indicated some L4-5
bilateral facet hypertrophy and L5-S1 facet spurring, but no
disc protrusion or neural impingement and that x-rays indicated
normal verbal alignment and no fracture or subluxation.
assigning very little weight to the extreme limitations listed
by Dr. Harris, or his opinion that Plaintiff is disabled and
unable to work.
opinion that Plaintiff is disabled.
As noted by the ALJ, the
record reflects that Dr. Timberlake treated Plaintiff on two
occasions, namely March 19, 2012 and April 6, 2012, and then
only for sinus problems and elevated hypertension. (Tr. 19, 34249).
Dr. Timberlake’s treatment notes reflect that during each
during the April visit, no specific functional limitations are
noted in the treatment records. (Id., at 347-48).
(physical) in July 2012, wherein he opined that Plaintiff can
only lift/carry five (5) pounds occasionally, and that Plaintiff
can stand/walk one hour in an eight (8) hour day, and can sit
one hour in an eight (8) hour day, these severe limitations are
treatment notes from Plaintiff’s treating physicians; thus, the
ALJ had good cause for not giving Dr. Timberlake’s opinions
regarding Plaintiff’s functional limitations and his ability to
work controlling weight.
Plaintiff argues that a physical therapist is not an “acceptable
medical source” pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513, and that the
physical therapist performed the FCE based on the methodology of
the Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment 4th Edition,
which was replaced by the American Medical Association in 2003.
According to Plaintiff, the outdated edition specifically limits
updated version of the “Guides” unequivocally states that such
methodology should be used for determining “basic activities of
daily living, not including work”. (Doc. 14 at 6-7).
outdated version does not include the updated methodology for
assessments of the individual’s pain or medication side effects,
which the ALJ is required to consider and evaluate in disability
Plaintiff further contends that the physical
therapist’s FCE provides only a “snapshot” of what Plaintiff can
do, not what he is capable of doing “on an ongoing basis for
Plaintiff’s testimony that he was unable to get out of bed for
two days following the FCE. (Id.).
Thus, Plaintiff maintains
The law is clear that “[a] physical therapist is not a
treating physician, and his or her opinion is not entitled to
regulations.” Aponte v. Commissioner Of Social Sec., 2009 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 3497, *9, 2009 WL 129629 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 20, 2009)
(citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513;
Freeman v. Barnhart, 220 Fed.
entitled to consideration as an “other source.” Id.
from “other non-medical sources” such as physical therapists,
sources’...are important and should be evaluated on key issues
such as impairment severity and functional effects, along with
the other relevant evidence in the file.” SSR 06-03p.
In this case, the ALJ gave controlling weight to the FCE
assessment that was ordered by Dr. Stewart and was prepared by a
In assigning controlling weight to the FCE
comprehensive evaluation, and is well supported by acceptable
assessment reflects that Plaintiff was evaluated in the areas of
lifting, carrying, pushing, standing, walking, stair climbing,
physical therapist concluded as follows:
Throughout the evaluation the patient did display
objective limitations with his ability to perform
material and non-material handling activities with
noted impairments with ambulation, strength and
standing/walking for 20 minutes at a time before
having to sit down. The evaluee with the nonmaterial handling displayed poor functional ability
with most of the exercises performed. A Roofer per
the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) is
rated with a physical demand level of Medium. With
material handling, he demonstrated the ability to
work in the Medium DOT category, but displayed
increased signs of pain and decreased endurance. He
completed all of the material handling activities
to the point of objective physical weakness or
completed a written statement addressed to Dr. Stewart, wherein
the therapist opined that based on her evaluation, Plaintiff’s
statement, and expressly noted that she agreed with the
whole person” impairment; however, she did not comment on the
assessment Dr. Stewart did not sign the FCE assessment.
result, there is nothing before the Court that reflects that Dr.
Stewart, Plaintiff’s primary treating doctor, agreed with the
functional limitations listed in the FCE assessment, let alone
the therapist’s opinion that Plaintiff could return to medium
Dr. Stewart’s treatment records do however reflect that on
at least two occasions, she expressed the opinion that Plaintiff
was capable of performing sedentary work if his employer could
Plaintiff had reached MMI, and that he likely would continue to
have vague lower lumbar and sacral discomfort because of the
combination of a sacral fracture and his morbid obesity. (Id.,
She also expressly stated that she would approve of
Further, as noted supra, when Dr. Harris conducted
the consultative examination of Plaintiff on June 18, 2012, he
observed that Plaintiff walked with a “markedly slow stooped
gait”, and that he has positive leg raisings, diffuse tenderness
throughout the mid back, decrease in range of motion of the left
hip, and an inability to toe and heal walk or squat and arise.
(Id., at 341).
sedentary type work for Plaintiff, the ALJ’s decision to give
controlling weight to the FCE prepared by the physical therapist
perform light work is also at odds with the medical evidence,
that Plaintiff has reached MMI and is capable of performing
sedentary type work. (Id., at 330).
In his opinion, the ALJ
does not discuss nor seek to resolve this critical discrepancy
in the record; thus, this case is due to be reversed.
consideration of the administrative record and memoranda of the
Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff’s claim for a
period of disability and disability insurance benefits income be
REVERSED and REMANDED.
DONE this 25th day of August, 2014.
/s/ SONJA F. BIVINS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?