Anderson v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 20

JUDGMENT in favor of Aretha Lynn Anderson against Commissioner of Social Security. CASE REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. CASE CLOSED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden on 7/29/15. (ncb)

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

PLAINTIFF

V.

NO. 3:14CV00275-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 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 decision is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. First, the ALJ
essentially adopted a nonexaminer’s (Dr. James Griffin) January 2010 residual functional
capacity (“RFC”) assessment which assessed the claimant at the medium exertional level despite
the fact that at least four medical source statements from examining and treating physicians
assessed the claimant’s RFC at less than sedentary to light. In view of the early date of Dr.
Griffin’s assessment, however, it is evident his opinion is based on an incomplete medical
record, as he did not have the benefit of a vast amount of medical evidence, including, but not
limited to, findings by Dr. Michael Steuer in 2013 of positive bilateral straight leg raising,
decreased sensation to the lower left extremity, lumbar spondylosis, cervical and lumbar

radiculopathy, and the claimant’s need of a TENS1 unit for pain management. Likewise, the
ALJ’s reliance upon the nonexamining state agency physician’s January 2010 mental assessment
was erroneous in view of the fact that the bulk of the claimant’s mental health treatment of
record took place between October 2011 and May 2013, and her treating and examining doctors
assessed her at a level that essentially precluded employment. On remand, the ALJ shall seek
the assistance of medical experts who will review the entirety of the medical evidence with
respect to the claimant’s mental and physical impairments, respectively, and render opinions
about the claimant’s RFC as it regards her mental and physical capabilities during the relevant
period. The ALJ shall then consider this evidence along with all the evidence of record to
determine whether there was any work the claimant was capable of performing during the
relevant period. If necessary, the ALJ shall obtain additional vocational expert testimony and
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 29th day of July, 2015.

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

1

In his decision the ALJ erroneously stated “the documentary
record fails to substantiate the claimant’s allegations that she
requires a TENS unit.” To the contrary, records of the
claimant’s May and August 2013 visits with Dr. Michael Steuer
show the claimant was prescribed a TENS unit for pain management.
-2-