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)

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