Deloach v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
24
FINAL JUDGMENT in favor of Tony Vento Deloach against Commissioner of Social Security. THE CASE IS REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. CASE CLOSED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden on 6/22/18. (ncb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
ABERDEEN DIVISION
TONY VENTO DELOACH
PLAINTIFF
NO. 1:17CV00068-JMV
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
DEFENDANT
FINAL JUDGMENT
This cause is before the court on Plaintiff’s complaint for judicial review of an
unfavorable final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denying a
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:
Consistent with the court’s ruling from the bench during a hearing held June 19, 2018, the
court finds the ALJ’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”) assessment is not supported by
substantial evidence in the record. Specifically, the ALJ gave “greatest” weight to the functional
assessment of Dr. Joe Cook, who opined in June 2015 that the claimant “could only perform a
restricted range of light work due to diabetes and neuropathy.” In relevant part, Dr. Cook opined
the claimant could only “stand a total of 30 minutes uninterrupted . . . [and stand] a total of four
hours in an 8-hour day.” Nevertheless, the ALJ crafted an RFC that rendered the claimant
capable of a “full range” of light work, albeit with certain postural, environmental, and mental
1
limitations. The ALJ provided no explanation, however, for rejecting the limitations on standing
found by Dr. Cook. The ALJ’s error was compounded to the extent the ALJ improperly
rendered a decision of not disabled based upon grid rules instead of vocational expert testimony.
Cf. Lawler v. Heckler, 761 F.2d 195, 197 (5th Cir. 1985) (“We have repeatedly held that the
Secretary may rely on the medical-vocational guidelines to establish that work exists for a
claimant only if the guidelines’ ‘evidentiary underpinnings coincide exactly with the evidence of
disability appearing on the record.’”) (citation omitted).
On remand, the ALJ must either provide an explanation, supported by substantial
evidence already in the record, for rejecting the opinion of Dr. Cook or obtain vocational expert
testimony on the issue of availability of jobs based upon the prior RFC found by the ALJ,
amended by the limitation on standing found by Dr. Cook. In the instance the ALJ is able to
explain the decision to reject Dr. Cook’s standing limitations (with the support of substantial
evidence from the record), the ALJ must either obtain vocational expert testimony on the issue of
availability of jobs or fully explain, with the support of substantial evidence, any determination
that the claimant’s non-exertional limitations had “little or no effect on the occupational base of
unskilled light work.”
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this case is REVERSED
and REMANDED for further proceedings.
This, the 22nd day of June, 2018.
/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?