Elkins v. Social Security Administration Commissioner
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 September 8, 2016. (lw) Modified on 9/8/2016 to add text (lw).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
DIANA L. ELKINS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-cv-2120-MEF
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner,
Social Security Administration
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 Court finds that remand is necessary to allow the ALJ to reconsider the Plaintiff’s RFC
in light of her hearing and speech impairments. During a consultative exam in September 2012,
Dr. Walz found her speech difficult to understand at times. Further, an audiologist conducted
hearing tests on Plaintiff in May 2013, noting moderate profound sloping SNHL word recognition
bilaterally and recommending a trial period of amplification and further follow-up. Although the
ALJ found her hearing impairment to be severe, his RFC determination made no mention of it.
Accordingly, remand is necessary to allow the ALJ to obtain a consultative audiology examination
complete with an RFC to determine the full extent of the Plaintiff’s hearing impairment. Based on
the new information obtained, the ALJ should then formulate hypothetical questions to the
vocational expert to determine whether the Plaintiff remains capable of performing jobs that exist
in significant numbers in the national economy.
IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED on this the 8th day of September, 2016.
/s/ Mark E. Ford
HON. MARK E. FORD
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?