Todd v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 19

JUDGMENT in favor of Wendell Todd against Commissioner of Social Security. CASE REMANDED TO SSA. CASE CLOSED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden on 10/31/14. (ncb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
OXFORD DIVISION

WENDELL TODD

PLAINTIFF

V.

NO. 3:14CV00070-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
claims for a period of disability and 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 during oral argument, the court finds
the ALJ’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. No hypothetical on
which the vocational expert’s testimony was based matches the RFC determination made by the
ALJ. Specifically, while the ALJ’s second hypothetical required the VE to assume an individual
who could perform “light work” with some postural limitations, the ALJ’s hearing decision sets
a more limited RFC, including a limitation of sitting for no more than two hours. Because the
VE did not have the benefit of the two-hour sitting limitation, his testimony that there were jobs
available in the national economy that the individual could perform does not constitute
substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s determination that the claimant is not disabled. On

remand, the ALJ shall obtain supplemental vocational expert testimony on the issue of whether
there are a significant number of other jobs in the national economy the claimant can perform,
considering a function-by-function expression of the claimant’s RFC. The ALJ may conduct any
additional proceedings not inconsistent with this order.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this case is REVERSED
and REMANDED for further proceedings.
This, the 31st day of October, 2014.

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

-2-