McCool v. Social Security Administration Commissioner
Filing
22
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 December 14, 2018. (hnc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
JACOB A. MCCOOL
v.
PLAINTIFF
CIVIL NO. 2:18-cv-2034-MEF
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
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 regarding
his applications for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. 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), with any appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
The Court, having reviewed the record, the administrative transcript, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the parties having waived oral argument, finds as follows, to-wit:
For the reasons announced by the Court on the record on December 13, 2018, the Court
finds that the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is not supported by substantial
evidence and should be reversed, with benefits to be awarded to Plaintiff as of October 31, 2012.
The Court previously remanded this matter for further development of the record as to the
limitations caused by Plaintiff’s foot impairment and for reconsideration of the RFC assessment.
Following that remand and a supplemental administrative hearing, the ALJ failed to state good
reasons for granting little weight to the opinion of Plaintiff’s treating physician, Dr. Silver.
Further, while stating that he gave the consultative examiner Dr. Honghiran’s opinion substantial
weight, the ALJ ignored Dr. Honghiran’s sitting restrictions without explanation. The opinions of
these physicians make it clear that Plaintiff cannot perform the sitting requirements of sedentary
work.
When the Commissioner’s decision to deny benefits is improper, we ordinarily will remand
for further proceedings out of an abundance of deference to the agency’s authority to make benefits
determinations. Buckner v. Apfel, 213 F.3d 2006, 1011 (8th Cir. 2000). However, it is clear to
this Court that the evidence in this case supports a finding of disability. In making his decision to
the contrary, the ALJ ignored the findings of Drs. Silver and Honghiran that Plaintiff could not
perform the sitting requirements of a sedentary job. This case was previously remanded for further
development of the record, resulting in more medical opinions supporting Plaintiff’s disability,
which the ALJ ignored. A remand for further consideration would only further delay this case.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the decision of the
Administrative Law Judge is reversed, and this case is remanded to the Commissioner with
directions to award benefits to Plaintiff as of October 31, 2012.
IT IS SO ORDERED this the 14th day of December 2018.
/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?