Morris v. Social Security Administration Commissioner

Filing 16

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 15, 2016. (mfr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
ERIC SCOTT MORRIS

V.

PLAINTIFF

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-CV-2180-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).
Remand is necessary to allow the ALJ to reconsider the severity of Plaintiff’s diagnosis of
dissociative identity disorder and the limitations this diagnosis imposes on his ability to perform
work-related activities. On remand, the ALJ is directed to order a consultative psychological
evaluation complete with a mental RFC assessment. In so doing, the ALJ is further directed to
forward the examiner copies of the Plaintiff’s childhood records to ensure the examiner has a

complete understanding of the Plaintiff’s history prior to rendering an opinion as to his RFC. Upon
obtaining the aforementioned RFC assessment, the ALJ should reconsider Plaintiff’s RFC and
include said RFC in appropriately phrased hypothetical questions posed to a vocational expert to
determine whether work exists in significant numbers in the national economy the Plaintiff can
perform.
IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED on this the 15th day of September, 2016.
/s/ Mark E. Ford
HON. MARK E. FORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2