Moody v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 21

JUDGMENT in favor of Betty Moody against Commissioner of Social Security. The case is REMANDED for further proceedings. CASE CLOSED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden on 2/5/16. (ncb)

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

PLAINTIFF

V.

NO. 3:15CV0041-SA-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 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 is not
convinced the ALJ’s residual functional capacity assessment (“RFC”) is supported by substantial
evidence in the record. Specifically, the ALJ attributed “significant” weight to the nonexamining state agency physician’s (Dr. Janise Hinson’s) November 2010 opinion that the
claimant had only “mild” difficulties in maintaining concentration, persistence or pace and could
maintain attention and concentration adequately for two-hour periods. However, the ALJ
assigned only “some” weight to the April 2013 opinion of the consultative mental examiner, Dr.
Pamela Buck, who opined the claimant’s attention and concentration were moderately impaired
and that on a day-to-day basis in a regular work setting, the claimant had a “poor” ability to deal
with work stresses and “poor” ability to maintain attention and concentration. The ALJ further

indicated that Dr. Buck’s opinion did not receive greater weight because the “overall
evidence”–which he identified as ten exhibits–did not support the degree of limitation Dr. Buck
indicated for attention and concentration.
First, the Court notes Dr. Hinson’s opinion was rendered without the benefit of a
comprehensive mental status examination of the claimant. Second, to the extent the ALJ
determined the “overall evidence” supported Dr. Hinson’s conclusion with regard to attention
and concentration and contradicted Dr. Buck’s, the Court would point out that none of the
evidence cited by the ALJ addresses attention and concentration, and none of it was obtained by
a mental health specialist.
Ultimately, while the vocational expert’s testimony establishes that all work is precluded
for the claimant if she is unable to maintain attention and concentration for two hour periods, it is
unclear to the Court whether Dr. Buck’s assessment supports a finding of disability.
Accordingly, on remand, the ALJ shall re-contact Dr. Buck and seek an opinion regarding what
relation her assessment of “poor” ability to maintain attention and concentration has to the
claimant’s ability to maintain attention and concentration for a period of at least two hours. If
such an opinion cannot be obtained from Dr. Buck, the ALJ shall order another mental status
examination of the claimant and obtain a medical opinion regarding the claimant’s mental ability
to perform work activity during the relevant period, including the extent to which the claimant
could maintain attention and concentration. The ALJ shall consider all of the evidence and
reconsider the claimant’s RFC. Finally, the ALJ shall determine whether there are any jobs the
claimant could perform in view of her RFC. The ALJ may conduct any additional proceedings
not inconsistent with this order.

-2-

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this case is REMANDED
for further proceedings.
This, the 5th day of February, 2016.

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

-3-