Sopshire 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 October 18, 2016. (hnc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-cv-2216-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 severity of the
Plaintiff’s mental impairments and the resulting RFC. On remand, the ALJ is directed to reconsider
the opinion evidence of Drs. Norwood and Wright, Ms. Sinclair, and Mr. Rust. If the ALJ intends
to discount those opinions, he should state in detail the reasons supporting the decision to do so.
The ALJ is further directed to reconsider his credibility analysis. Again, if he intends to discredit
the credibility of the Plaintiff’s subjective complaints, he should state in detail the good reasons
that support his decision to do so.
IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED on this the 18th day of October, 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?