Bays v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 23

JUDGMENT in favor of Jennifer Bays against Commissioner of Social Security. The case is REMANDED for further proceedings. CASE CLOSED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden on 10/28/15. (ncb)

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

JENNIFER BAYS

PLAINTIFF

V.

NO. 3:15CV00053-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 finds
the ALJ’s residual functional capacity assessment (“RFC”) is not supported by substantial
evidence in the record. The ALJ found the claimant was capable of a full range of light work
and had certain mental and environmental limitations. The ALJ did not, however, provide a
function-by-function assessment of the claimant’s physical work capabilities. Furthermore, the
ALJ gave no indication in his decision whether or not he incorporated findings by Dr. Ganesh of
“moderate limitation lifting, carrying, pushing, and pulling.” Nor did the ALJ make any
reference to the state agency medical consultant’s RFC assessment which included, among other
things, a limitation on reaching with the right arm in front and/or laterally and overhead. On

remand, the ALJ shall reconsider the claimant’s RFC–making certain to first perform a functionby-function assessment of the claimant’s physical capacity to perform sustained work
activity–and obtain supplemental vocational expert testimony regarding whether there are any
jobs the claimant can perform in view of her RFC and relevant vocational factors. 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 28th day of October, 2015.

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

-2-