Byrd v. Social Security Administration Commissioner

Filing 19

FINAL JUDGMENT REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER AND REMANDING THIS CASE TO THE COMMISSIONER FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION PURSUANT TO SENTENCE FOUR of 42 U.S.C. 405(g). Signed by Honorable Mark E. Ford on June 29, 2016. (lw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
MARK H. BYRD
V.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-CV-2043-MEF

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner,
Social Security Administration

DEFENDANT

FINAL JUDGMENT
This cause is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s complaint for judicial review of an
unfavorable final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denying his
claim for disability benefits. The parties have consented to entry of final judgment by the United
States Magistrate Judge under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The Court, having reviewed
the administrative record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and having heard oral
argument, finds as follows, to-wit:
Consistent with the Court’s ruling from the bench following the parties’ oral argument, the
decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is reversed and remanded for further proceedings
pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
The Court notes the procedural history of this case, having been previously remanded for
further development of the record concerning the Plaintiff’s ability to perform sedentary work.
Although the ALJ did order the consultative examination and RFC assessment as directed by this
Court, the record still lacks substantial evidence to support a finding that the Plaintiff can perform
sedentary work. Sedentary work requires the ability to sit for six hours in an eight-hour workday.
Examining orthopedic consultant, Dr. Honghiran, opined the Plaintiff would be limited to four
hours of sitting and non-examining consultant, Dr. Payne, limited the Plaintiff to sitting “about
six” hours. The Court finds that clarification is needed regarding the Plaintiff’s ability to sit, as it

is central to a finding that he can perform sedentary work. Accordingly, on remand, the ALJ is
directed to recontact Dr. Honghiran for further clarification of the sitting limitation he has imposed
and identification of the objective evidence supporting this limitation. In addition, the ALJ is
directed to order a second consultative orthopedic examination, complete with an RFC assessment,
to be conducted by an orthopedist, other than Dr. Honghiran.
The ALJ is further directed to reconsider the RFC, in light of the new evidence obtained,
and formulate appropriate hypothetical questions to the vocational expert in order to determine
whether the Plaintiff is capable of performing work that exists in significant numbers in the
national economy.
IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED on this the 29th day of June, 2016.
/s/ Mark E. Ford
HON. MARK E. FORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2