Kimble v. Colvin

Filing 20

JUDGMENT in favor of Jimmy Earl Kimble against Carolyn W. Colvin. The case is reversed and remanded for an award of benefits. CASE CLOSED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden on 5/11/15. (ncb)

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

PLAINTIFF

V.

NO. 3:14CV00230-MPM-JMV

CAROLYN COLVIN,
Acting 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 for 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 residual functional capacity assessment and Step 4 determination are not supported by
substantial evidence in the record and that the case should be reversed and remanded for an
award of benefits for the reasons that follow.
The ALJ found the claimant had a residual functional capacity (“RFC”) for medium work
and was further limited by his ability to only occasionally perform certain postural maneuvers
and by certain mental limitations. However, no medical evidence in the record supports the
ALJ’s conclusion that the claimant could perform work at the medium exertional level. See
Frank v. Barnhard, 326 F.3d 618, 622 (5th Cir. 2003) (citing Schmidt v. Sullivan, 914 F.2d 117,

118 (7th Cir. 1990), as authority for the position that ALJ’s may not “play doctor” and make
their own independent medical assessments). On the contrary, every medical opinion considered
by the ALJ contradicts this conclusion. Notably, the ALJ rejected the opinion of Dr. Robert
Shearin who performed a consultative physical examination of Plaintiff in September 2011 and
who essentially assessed Plaintiff at the sedentary exertional level of work because “Dr. Shearin
expressly based his assessment of the claimant’s inability to perform any frequent lifting
unpersuasively upon the claimant’s successful lifting and carrying of a twelve-pound briefcase”
and because Dr. Shearin “noted . . . that his diagnoses in this case were only ‘partly’ confirmed
by objective findings.” The court finds these reasons expressed by the ALJ do not jibe with the
findings as presented in Dr. Shearin’s report and medical source statement, and Dr. Shearin’s
opinion is not otherwise contradicted by credible evidence. But see Newton v. Apfel, 209 F.3d
448, 455-56 (5th Cir. 2000) (an ALJ may reject any physician opinion when the evidence
supports a contrary conclusion).
Indeed, the only other significant RFC assessment by a physician in the record was that
of Dr. Robert Culpepper, a non-examiner. Dr. Culpepper assessed the claimant at the light
exertional level, and the ALJ attributed “some” weight to this opinion. However, not only did
Dr. Culpepper’s 2010 RFC assessment conflict with an examining physician’s opinion, it was
based on an incomplete review of the medical evidence. Notably, in comments to his RFC
assessment, Dr. Culpepper stated that “no radiographic examination” had been done with regard
to Plaintiff’s rotator cuff disease. This statement, of course, is directly contradicted by a May
2009 record from Oxford Orthopaedics & Sports Medicine Clinic indicating that a “[s]houlder
MRI showed a rotator cuff strain and a possible labral tear.” Therefore, Dr. Culpepper’s

-2-

assessment does not rise to the level of substantial evidence on which a finding of not disabled
could be based. See Villa v. Sullivan, 895 F.2d 1019, 1024 (5th Cir. 1990) (holding ALJ may
properly rely upon non-examining physician findings only when they are based on a careful
evaluation of the medical evidence and do not contradict findings of examining physicians).
Ultimately, the court finds Dr. Shearin’s consultative examination report and medical
source statement support the conclusion that during the relevant period the claimant could only
perform work at the sedentary exertional level. Therefore, because the record indicates the
claimant was 50 years old on the day of the administrative hearing; had a limited education; and
lacked transferable skills, pursuant to Medical Vocational Guideline Rule 201.10, he was
disabled as of his fiftieth birthday. Accordingly, on remand the Commissioner shall award
benefits based upon the claimant’s becoming disabled as of his fiftieth birthday.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this case is REVERSED
and REMANDED FOR AN AWARD OF BENEFITS.
This, the 11th day of May, 2015.

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

-3-