Shutt v. Commissioner of Social Security
JUDGMENT in favor of Gordon K. Shutt against Commissioner of Social Security. THE CASE IS REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. CASE CLOSED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden on 4/13/17. (ncb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GORDON K. SHUTT
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
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
a claim for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits and supplemental security
income benefits. 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:
Consistent with the court’s ruling from the bench during a hearing held today, the court
finds the ALJ’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”) determination is not supported by
substantial evidence in the record. Specifically, the ALJ determined the claimant could perform
work at the medium level of exertion. The ALJ’s decision is based in large part upon the
opinion of the state agency non-examining physician. This opinion conflicts, of course, with
the consultative examining physician’s (Dr. Bruce Randolph) opinion that the claimant could
lift and carry only “up to 20 pounds” and could “sit with intermittent standing and walking
every 30 minutes.” With respect to the lifting restriction found by Dr. Randolph, the ALJ did
not attribute it full weight because he deemed it inconsistent with Dr. Randolph’s own
purported finding of “full strength and use of the extremities.” However, as pointed out during
the hearing on this matter, Dr. Randolph’s report does not contain any such finding of full
Next, with respect to Dr. Randolph’s limitation of a sit/stand option, the ALJ gives no
explanation whatsoever for his apparent rejection of this limitation. And, again, the state
agency physician’s failure to include such a limitation in his RFC assessment created a conflict
that was not resolved in the ALJ’s decision.1
On remand, the ALJ shall reconsider the claimant’s RFC in light of the inconsistencies
pointed out herein. If necessary, the ALJ shall recontact Dr. Randolph and/or order another
consultative examination. Once the ALJ has considered all of the evidence in the record, the
ALJ shall make a function-by-function determination of the claimant’s RFC and articulate the
same in the decision. The ALJ shall then determine–with the assistance of a vocational expert
if necessary–whether there is any work the claimant can perform in light of his limitations.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this case is REVERSED
and REMANDED for further proceedings.
This, the 13th day of April, 2017.
/s/ Jane M. Virden
U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The Court here also points out that it finds that a commonsense interpretation of Dr. Randolph’s
opinion is that the claimant was able to sit and could only perform intermittent standing and walking every 30
minutes, not that the opinion contains no limitation on the claimant’s ability to stand and/or walk–as argued by
the Commissioner. Of course, the ALJ can resolve this issue on remand by making the function-by-function
assessment ordered by this Court.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?