Laughter v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 21

JUDGMENT in favor of Lia Briana Laughter against Commissioner of Social Security, Social Security Administration Commissioner c/o General Counsel. CASE CLOSED. Signed by Magistrate Judge David A. Sanders on 12/10/14. (def)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
OXFORD DIVISION

LIA BRIANA LAUGHTER

PLAINTIFF

V.

CIVIL ACTION NO.3:14CV24-DAS

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
ACTING 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 of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denying
her claim for disability 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, the applicable law, and having heard oral argument, finds as follows, towit:
Consistent with the court’s ruling from the bench following oral argument, the decision
of the Commissioner of Social Security should be reversed and the case remanded for further
proceedings.
1. The Administrative Law Judge(ALJ) determined that the plaintiff had the residual
functional capacity(RFC)to perform a somewhat limited range of light work, relying on the
physical capacity assessment of the non-examining Disability Determination Service (DDS)
physician. She gave little weight to the report and physical capacity assessment of the
consultative examiner (CE), who opined that Laughter could perform less than a full range of
sedentary work. The only explanation for this decision given was that his assessment was "not

consistent with his mild to moderate objective findings." The court finds that this is not an
adequate explanation for rejecting the only examining doctor's assessment. The CE found
marked chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), a severe compression fracture of the
spine, and multiple objective findings of degenerative joint disease in her knees, hands and
spine. The CE’s report does not indicate that his objective findings are mild or moderate. There
is no substantial evidence on this record to support preferring the findings of the DDS physician
over the CE. On remand, the ALJ must provide an explanation for accepting the non-examining
physician’s opinion over the CE’s report and opinion.
2. On remand the ALJ must also perform the detailed analysis required by SSR 82-62
before she can find that the claimant retains the capacity to perform past relevant work.
3. The court further finds that the credibility determination is not supported by
substantial evidence. The DDS physician found the claimant’s symptoms of COPD, low back
pain, and knee pain were credible and supported by objective tests. The CE noted her symptoms
were credible, consistent with objective findings and her effort on testing was good. The ALJ,
nevertheless, found that the claimant’s testimony was not credible, citing portions of the
claimant’s testimony to support the decision. Because these portions of the claimant’s testimony
support and are consistent with her claim of disability, they do not support a finding that her
testimony was less than fully credible. On remand, the ALJ shall clarify her credibility
determination as to the claimant’s testimony.
4. As pointed out in Plaintiff’s arguments Four, Five and Six, it appears that the ALJ has
made a series of mistakes. There were mistakes about the costs of combinations of medicines
and the use of the breathing machine and a finding that the claimant continued to smoke, when
the record indicates she quit smoking years earlier. The opinion failed to reference or explain

the weight given to the statement of the claimant’s daughter-in-law, as required by SSR 06-3p.
While any one of these errors standing alone might be insufficient to justify remand, this
combination of errors undermines confidence in the accuracy of the decision, including raising
serious doubt about whether the ALJ would have made the same decision in the absence of these
errors. The claimant has therefore shown prejudice.
5. Finally, the court finds that the ALJ’s reference to an employer accommodating the
claimant’s use of the breathing machine is not a reference to the Americans with Disabilities Act
and is not error.
SO ORDERED this the 10th day of December, 2014.

/s/ David A. Sanders
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE