English v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 20

JUDGMENT in favor of Melissa Karen English against Commissioner of Social Security, Social Security Administration Commissioner c/o General Counsel. CASE CLOSED. Signed by Magistrate Judge David A. Sanders on 10/1/18. (def)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
OXFORD DIVISION

MELISSA KAREN ENGLISH

PLAINTIFF

V.

CIVIL ACTION NO.3:17-CV-219-DAS

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

DEFENDANT

FINAL JUDGMENT
This cause is before the court on the claimant’s complaint for judicial review of an
unfavorable final decision by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration.

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 that the final decision of the defendant
should be affirmed in part, and reversed and remanded in part.
The plaintiff has raised three issues in this appeal:
1. That the ALJ failed to evaluate the November 2013 x-rays of the plaintiff’s spine and
the report of Dr. Jim Adams who performed a consultative examination addressing plaintiff’s
physical conditions;
2. That the ALJ erred in her evaluation of the mental health consultative examination by
Dr. Pamela Buck; and

1

3. The ALJ erred in her evaluation of the report by the plaintiff’s mother under SSR 063P.
The court agrees with the plaintiff’s first assignment of error and finds that the ALJ erred
in the evaluation of the plaintiff’s spinal x-rays. The record shows that the x-rays were ordered
for use by Dr. Jim Adams, in connection with his consultative examination of the plaintiff, but
were not taken until after his examination. The x-ray report includes a significant finding of
spondylolisthesis of the lumbar spine of L-4 and L-5, “with near complete loss of the disc
space,” but Dr. Adam’s report makes no reference to these x-ray findings. Nor is there any
indication that the disability determination services physicians ever reviewed this x-ray report.
The record does not show their receipt of the report and the physicians’ reports do not comment
on the x-ray report’s finding. The only reference to these x-rays is by the ALJ, a lay person,
who may not interpret medical findings. Ripley v. Chater, 67 F .3d 552, 557, n.2 (5th Cir. 1995).
Considering that the x-rays were ordered as part of the SSA’s evaluative process and
contained unusual, seemingly significant findings, but were never reviewed by a medical
professional, the court finds error. In light of the fact that even a slight change in the claimant’s
assessed RFC, from a restricted range of light work down to sedentary, would result in the
plaintiff being found disabled under the GRIDS, (the Medical-Vocational Guidelines, 20 C.F.R.
Pt 404, Subpt P, App. 2 ), the court finds the error is prejudicial.
The court, however, affirms the defendant’s decision as to the second and third issues
raised by the plaintiff. The ALJ gave limited weight to the opinion of Dr. Buck, not only
because her opinions and findings were internally inconsistent, but because her assessment of the
severity of plaintiff’s mental health issues is not supported by the treatment records of the

2

plaintiff’s treating mental health professional. Additionally, Buck only saw and evaluated the
plaintiff one time.
The ALJ’s decision demonstrates that she considered and weighed the plaintiff’s
mother’s report. The decision to give it little weight is supported by substantial evidence
because it is inconsistent with the administrative record as a whole.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this case is reversed and
remanded for further proceedings consistent with the ruling of the court and this judgment.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 1st day of October, 2018.

/s/ David A. Sanders
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3