Moore v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Michael J. Astrue
Filing
19
FINAL JUDGMENT in favor of Billy Mitchell Moore against Commissioner of Social Security Administration. The case is REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings. CASE CLOSED. Signed by Jane M Virden on 10/29/13. (ncb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
ABERDEEN DIVISION
BILLY MITCHELL MOORE
PLAINTIFF
VS.
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 1:13CV00013-JMV
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITYADMINISTRATION
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 a period of disability and Disability Insurance 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), with any appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The court, having
reviewed the administrative record, the briefs of the parties, and 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 court finds that the doctrine of res judicata bars Plaintiff’s claim for benefits for the period
beginning May 19, 2006 and ending May 19, 2009 (the date of the ALJ’s decision on Plaintiff’s
prior application). However, with respect to the relevant period, May 20, 2009 through the date
last insured, the court finds the ALJ failed to articulate sufficient cause for discounting the
opinion of Plaintiff’s treating physician, Dr. Andrew Kerby, with respect to limitations
associated with Plaintiff’s diabetes. Particularly, the ALJ pointed out that Dr. Kerby found
diabetic peripheral neuropathy and that there was “mention” of conducting an EMG study, but
discounted his opinion (presumably) merely because there was no copy of the EMG study in the
record. On remand, the ALJ shall recontact Dr. Kerby and request a copy of the results of the
EMG study referenced in his treatment notes and medical source statement. The ALJ shall
consider this evidence and obtain supplemental opinions from Plaintiff’s consultative examiners
if necessary. Counsel for the Plaintiff herein shall promptly notify this court (but no later
than 30 days after a new ALJ decision) if it is determined that no EMG study exists.
Additionally, the court notes the ALJ failed to include the claimant’s right wrist
impairment as a severe impairment–a finding made by the ALJ on Plaintiff’s prior
application–and made no determination regarding its severity. Yet, during the hearing, the ALJ
stated on the record that she was taking her hypothetical question from the prior ALJ’s decision
which actually took into account limitations associated with Plaintiff’s right hand. Nevertheless,
the hypothetical the ALJ actually read to the VE deviated with respect to the right hand only, as
it was less restrictive than the hypothetical/RFC found by the ALJ in the prior decision. On
remand, the ALJ shall make specific findings with regard to the severity of Plaintiff’s wrist
impairment and reconsider her RFC finding in that respect, if necessary. Moreover, the ALJ
shall obtain supplemental vocational expert testimony if necessary and conduct any additional
proceedings not inconsistent with this order.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this case is REVERSED
and REMANDED for further proceedings.
This, the 29th day of October, 2013.
/s/ Jane M. Virden
U. S. 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?