Brunetti v. Astrue

Filing 18

JUDGMENT in favor of Brandon Brunetti against Michael J. Astrue. CASE REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. CASE CLOSED. Signed by Jane M Virden on 4/4/13. (ncb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
DELTA DIVISION
BRANDON BRUNETTI

PLAINTIFF

VS.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:12CV00176-JMV

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of Social Security

DEFENDANT
FINAL JUDGMENT

Following oral argument during a telephonic hearing held before the undersigned United States
Magistrate Judge on April 4, 2013, the court determined that the ALJ’s decision is not supported by
substantial evidence. Specifically, in a Judgment dated October 28, 2010, U.S. Magistrate Judge David
Sanders remanded this case to the Commissioner with instructions to 1) assign the case to a new ALJ
and 2) recontact the claimant’s treating sources, Dr. Tejinder Saini and Kerri McNatt, and have them
clarify their opinions that the claimant was disabled. Though on remand the case was assigned to a new
ALJ, Judge Lisa Johnson, the court has determined that the ALJ did not obtain adequate clarification of
said treating source opinions that the claimant was disabled during the relevant time period, January 2,
2004 through June 26, 2009. Furthermore, the court finds that certain ambiguities exist in the medical
evidence obtained from Dr. Michael Whelan. Accordingly, on remand, a new ALJ1 shall conduct
proceedings consistent with the following instructions:
1. The ALJ shall recontact Dr. Tejinder Saini and Ms. McNatt specifically to obtain an
explanation of why their treatment notes for the relevant period (Jan. 2004 - June 2009) indicate that
claimant’s mental status exams were largely within normal limits, that he had no significant functional
complaints and was “generally stable,” and that he was assessed with a GAF as high as 61 while, on the
other hand, their Medical Assessment of Ability forms dated July and September 2007 show extreme
deficits in mental functioning. Additionally, the ALJ shall have Dr. Saini and Ms. McNatt explain to
1

During the hearing, the undersigned was informed by counsel for the claimant that Judge Lisa Johnson
is no longer in the district. Accordingly, consistent with Judge Sanders’ prior order, yet a new ALJ shall
consider this case on remand.

what extent the nature of claimant’s mental impairments–during the relevant period–affected his ability
to function independently, including, but not limited to, his ability to comply with required
medications. Lastly, the ALJ shall have said treating sources indicate to what degree the claimant’s
prescribed medications were expected to interfere with his ability to perform work activity during the
relevant period.
2. The ALJ shall recontact Dr. Michael Whelan to obtain an explanation regarding his finding
that the claimant had a “poor ability” to accept supervision (Tr. 436). Specifically, Dr. Whelan shall be
asked to explain to what degree the claimant was able to accept any supervision and give examples.
Dr. Whelan shall also be asked to explain his finding that the claimant had “a very low tolerance for
stress and probably [would] decompensate quickly in certain circumstances” (Tr. 434). Lastly, the ALJ
shall ask Dr. Whelan to consider and explain to what extent the claimant’s prescribed medications
during the relevant period were expected to interfere with his ability to perform work activity.
3. Should the ALJ be unable to obtain the foregoing clarification from the claimant’s treating
sources and Dr. Whelan after diligent effort, the ALJ shall obtain testimony from a medical expert
which addresses the aforementioned inconsistencies and ambiguities in the medical evidence as well as
expresses an opinion on the claimant’s ability to perform work activity during the relevant period in
light of all the medical evidence in the record, including consideration of expected side effects of
prescribed medications.
4. The ALJ shall obtain supplemental vocational expert testimony on the issue of whether there
was any work the claimant could perform during the relevant period considering his RFC and other
relevant vocational factors.
The parties, having 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,
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
2

That this case is hereby REMANDED to the Commissioner for further proceedings as set out
above.
THIS, 4th day of April, 2013.

/s/ Jane M. Virden
U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3