Myers 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 August 24, 2016. (hnc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
DWAYNE THOMAS MYERS
V.
PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-CV-2187-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 obtain RFC assessments from Dr. Al-Khatib and
the consultative cardiologist in order to develop the record with regard to the Plaintiff’s RFC. Upon
obtaining the RFC assessments, the ALJ should then reconsider Plaintiff’s RFC and include said
RFC in an appropriately phrased hypothetical question to the 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 24th 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?