Pierce v. Social Security Administration Commissioner
Filing
17
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 August 18, 2016. (hnc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
ALICIA ANN PIERCE
V.
PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-CV-2109-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 her
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 ALJ relied on the RFC assessments of non-examining consultants to determine
Plaintiff could perform unskilled, sedentary work. In so doing, he failed to address the opinions of
examining sources, Dr. Clifford Evans, Dr. Robert Spray, and Nurse Practitioner Stephanie Ellis,
or to provide his reasons for discounting their assessments. The Court notes that Dr. Evans and Dr.
Spray both conducted thorough examinations and additional objective testing that was not
conducted by Plaintiff’s treating physicians. They did not, however, provide RFC assessments.
Accordingly, on remand, the ALJ is directed to obtain RFC assessments from Dr. Evans
and Dr. Spray. He should then reconsider the assessments of Dr. Evans, Dr. Spray, and Nurse Ellis,
explain the weight given to each source, and provide any reasons for discrediting their assessments.
Further, the ALJ is directed to recall the vocational expert and pose a properly phrased hypothetical
question to the expert to ascertain whether the Plaintiff can return to her past relevant work or, if
not, whether work exists in significant numbers in the national economy that the Plaintiff remains
capable of performing.
IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED on this the 18th day of August, 2016.
/s/ Mark E. Ford
HON. MARK E. FORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2
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?