Madru v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
20
FINAL JUDGMENT in favor of Lisa Kay Madru against Commissioner of Social Security. Case REMANDED for further proceedings. CASE CLOSED. Signed by Jane M Virden on 6/4/13. (ncb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
DELTA DIVISION
LISA KAY MADRU
VS.
PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:12CV00189-JMV
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY
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
her claim for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. 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 meaningful judicial review is impossible because despite the ALJ’s
acknowledging receipt of Dr. Forster Ruhl’s mental Medical Source Statement during the
hearing– and receiving it into evidence– and the fact that the record indicates that plaintiff’s
counsel also submitted this evidence to the Appeals Council, the court did not find it in the
administrative record, nor was it discussed by either the ALJ or the Appeals Council in their
respective decisions. Therefore, it is highly likely that the said opinion was not considered by
the Commissioner. Additionally, there is no indication that the ALJ actually considered the
April 2011 physical Medical Source Statement of Dr. Ruhl. Again, there was no discussion of
this opinion in the ALJ’s decision. On remand, the ALJ is directed to consider Dr. Ruhl’s mental
and physical Medical Source Statements– along with all of the evidence in the record– and
conduct any additional proceedings not inconsistent with this order. The ALJ shall not neglect
to discuss the weight assigned to Dr. Ruhl’s opinions, and the reasons supporting such
assignment, in the new decision.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this case is REVERSED
and REMANDED for further proceedings.
This, the 4th day of June, 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?