Pulley v. Colvin

Filing 16

JUDGMENT in favor of Pamela Kay Pulley against Social Security Administration Commissioner c/o General Counsel, Carolyn W. Colvin. CASE CLOSED. Signed by Magistrate Judge David A. Sanders on 8/4/2017. (def)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI ABERDEEN DIVISION PAMELA KAY PULLEY PLAINTIFF V. CIVIL ACTION NO.1:16CV-222-DAS COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY DEFENDANT FINAL JUDGMENT This cause is before the court on the claimant=s complaint for judicial review of an unfavorable final decision by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. 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: In this case, the ALJ largely rejected the findings of both the treating physician and the consultative examiner, relying on the less generous opinions of the state agency physicians. The sole support for the RFC is the reports of the non-examining state agency physicians. These doctors undoubtedly perform valuable services for both the Social Security Administration and claimants by conducting early screenings of cases. No doubt this assists in the identification of cases where the determination of disability vel non is most obvious. These screenings do not involve physical examinations and because they are usually done early in the process, are typically based on limited medical records. These findings ,therefore, are of limited value by the time a case progresses to the hearing stage. When contradicted by treating physicians and examining physician’s reports, these preliminary opinions do not constitute substantial evidence as a matter of law. Villa v. Sullivan, , 895 F.2d 1019 (5 Cir. 1990). Therefore, the finding of th the claimant’s residual functional capacity is not supported by substantial evidence. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this case is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the ruling of the court and this judgment. SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 4th day of August, 2017. /s/ David A. Sanders 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?