Warren 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 June 30, 2016. (lw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
BRYAN WAYNE WARREN
V.

PLAINTIFF

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-CV-2113-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 finds that remand is necessary for reconsideration of the Plaintiff’s RFC and the
assessment of Advanced Practical Nurse, Tara Norris. While we recognize that APN Norris is not
an acceptable medical source, she does qualify as an “other source,” who is an appropriate source
of evidence regarding the severity of the Plaintiff’s impairment, and the effect of the impairment
on his ability to work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1513(d), 416.913(d). Further, the fact that her supervisor,
Dr. Hudefi, signed off on her assessment entitles her opinion to greater weight than that given to
non-treating consultants. Lacroix v. Barnhart, 465 F.3d 881, 886 (8th Cir. 2006) (holding a nurse
practitioner and a counselor at the Gannon Center were not acceptable medical sources, but

nonetheless considered them treating sources whose opinions were entitled to greater weight than
those of non-treating consultants).
APN Norris treated Plaintiff at Vista Health from June 26, 2012, until May 3, 2013, for
bipolar II disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder. Contrary to the Commissioner’s argument,
APN Norris’ treatment records do lend support to her assessment, as they document significant
anger, irritability, very poor frustration tolerance, and periods of aggression that would undermine
his ability to work with others, including supervisors and co-workers. Although APN Norris’
assessment was in the check-the-box format utilized by the Commissioner, she provided additional
commentary in support of her assessment, indicating that the Plaintiff was “very subjective to his
environment,” “had difficulty coping with immediate changes to his structure and routine,” “was
easily triggered by others,” and “his increasing paranoia resulted in poor job performance and
social functioning.” Therefore, it is the opinion of this Court that the ALJ’s RFC determination is
not supported by substantial evidence.
On remand, the ALJ is directed to reconsider the Plaintiff’s RFC, in light of APN Norris’
assessment, 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 30th day of June, 2016.
/s/ Mark E. Ford
HON. MARK E. FORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2