Bromaghin 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 April 12, 2019. (lw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
VIRGIL G. BROMAGHIN
V.
PLAINTIFF
CIVIL NO. 2:18-cv-2080-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 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 the parties having waived
oral argument, finds as follows, to-wit:
Consistent with the Court’s ruling from the bench, 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 does not find substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s RFC determination in
this case. Plaintiff suffers from schizoaffective disorder. Given the nature of his mental illness,
the Court finds that the record lacks a sufficient medical basis for determining the Plaintiff’s RFC.
It contains no consultative mental exams and no RFC assessments from his treating mental health
professionals. Accordingly, remand is necessary to allow the ALJ to obtain an RFC assessment
from Plaintiff's mental health provider. The ALJ is further directed to obtain a consultative mental
evaluation of the Plaintiff, complete with an RFC assessment, to aid in determining the Plaintiff's
mental RFC.
The ALJ is reminded that the evaluation of a mental impairment is more complicated than
the evaluation of a claimed physical impairment. Mental illness can be extremely difficult to
predict, and remissions are often of uncertain duration and marked by the impending possibility of
relapse. Oftentimes, a mentally ill person’s noncompliance with medication or treatment will be
deemed justified, because their noncompliance is a manifestation of their illness. See Pate-Fires
v. Astrue, 564 F.3d 935, 945 (8th Cir. 2009) (where the Court held the ALJ should have made a
distinction between a noncompliant schizoaffective claimant’s awareness of her need to take
medication and the question of whether it was a symptom of her mental illness).
IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED on this the 12th day of April 2019.
/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?