Butler v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
24
Final Judgment and ORDER Regarding Plaintiff's Social Security Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 3/28/17. CASE CLOSED. (Marrujo, C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
SCOTT BUTLER,
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
v.
Case No. 1:15-cv-00133-EPG
FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER
REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S SOCIAL
SECURITY COMPLAINT
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
15
Defendant.
16
17
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s complaint for judicial review of an
18
unfavorable decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration regarding his
19
application for disability insurance benefits. The parties have consented to entry of final judgment
20
by the United States Magistrate Judge under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) with any appeal
21
to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. (ECF Nos. 6, 11.)
22
At the hearing on March 28, 2017, the Court heard from the parties. Having reviewed the
23
cord, administrative transcript, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, the Court finds as
24
follows:
25
For the reasons announced by the Court on the record at the conclusion of the parties’ oral
26
argument on March 28, 2017, the Court finds that the decision of the Commissioner of Social
27
Security should be reversed and the case should be remanded for further proceedings.
28
1
1
In reaching Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity finding, the Administrative Law Judge
2
(“ALJ”) gave great weight to the medical opinions of examining psychologists Dr. Cushman and
3
Dr. Spivey. The ALJ indicated that, by including a single limitation for “work involving no
4
production rate or pace work” in Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity finding, he had “fully
5
credited the claimant with his complaint of problems with concentration and focus, and Dr.
6
Cushman and Dr. Spivey finding that the claimant may have problems dealing with stress and
7
emotional capacity.” However, the ALJ did not fully discuss the reason(s) for not accepting
8
several limitations suggested by Dr. Cushman, who determined that Plaintiff had limitations
9
including: 1) difficulty maintaining regular attendance, 2) difficulty working a normal workday or
10
workweek, 3) difficulty getting along with supervisors, coworkers and the public, and 4)
11
difficulty dealing with the usual stressors encountered in a competitive work environment. (AR
12
325.) The ALJ also did not fully discuss the reason(s) for not accepting the limitations suggested
13
by Dr. Spivey, who determined that Plaintiff had limitations including: 1) moderate limitation in
14
ability to withstand the stress of a routine workday, and 2) marked limitation in ability to
15
withstand emotional stability/predictability. (AR 437.) The ALJ’s failure to fully consider the
16
limitations found Dr. Cushman and Dr. Spivey constitutes legal error.
On remand, the Administrative Law Judge shall examine the record with respect to the
17
18
above medical sources and determine whether they should be incorporated in the residual
19
functional capacity finding. If they should not be incorporated, the Administrative Law Judge
20
should explain why. Alternatively, the Administrative Law Judge may incorporate their findings
21
and continue the analysis using the five step process.
The Court finds for the Commissioner regarding other of Plaintiff’s arguments, as
22
23
discussed on the record.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s appeal from the administrative decision of
24
25
the Commissioner of Social Security and the case is remanded to the Social Security
26
Administration.
27
\\\
28
\\\
2
1
2
The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff Scott Butler
and against Defendant Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of Social Security.
3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
5
Dated:
March 28, 2017
/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?