Mays v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 21

JUDGMENT in favor of Khan Lashone Mays against Commissioner of Social Security. THE CASE IS REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. CASE CLOSED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden on 10/15/15. (ncb)

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

KHAN LASHONE MAYS

PLAINTIFF

V.

NO. 3:14CV00259-JMV

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

DEFENDANT

FINAL JUDGMENT
This cause is before the Court on Plaintiff’s complaint for judicial review of a partially
unfavorable final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration regarding
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 residual functional capacity assessment (“RFC”) is not supported by substantial
evidence in the record. First, from all indications, the ALJ did not consider the June 2013 mental
Medical Source Statement prepared by Dr. Jorge Leal (Exhibit 16F). Second, the findings and
opinions expressed in the August 2013 treatment records and physical Medical Source Statement
of Dr. Pravin Patel contradict the ALJ’s physical RFC assessment, which is based on a state
agency non-examining physician’s opinion (and which physician did not have the benefit of Dr.
Patel’s findings). On remand, the ALJ shall consider all of the evidence in the record–being
careful to adequately resolve all conflicts in the evidence and explain such resolution in any

decision–and make a new RFC determination. The ALJ shall conduct a new hearing and obtain
vocational expert testimony relevant to the issue of whether the claimant can perform any work
in the national economy. The ALJ may conduct any additional proceedings not inconsistent with
this order.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this case is REMANDED
for further proceedings.
This, the 15th day of October, 2015.

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

-2-