Roberts v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 26

FINAL JUDGMENT in favor of Lenise Mashell Roberts against Commissioner of Social Security. The case is REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. CASE CLOSED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden on 2/14/19. (ncb)

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

PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

NO. 3:17CV243-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 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 February 13,
2019, the court finds the ALJ’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”) assessment is not supported
by substantial evidence in the record. Specifically, the court found a May 3, 2016 record of
treatment by Dr. Muhammad Batla, which indicated the claimant (who presented in a wheelchair
at that time) could not “reasonably do any weightbearing activities,” called into question the
ALJ’s RFC determination and finding that the claimant could perform certain sedentary jobs.
Indeed, a vocational expert had testified that all work in the national economy would be
precluded for someone with the claimant’s RFC and who also required an assistive device in

1

order to ambulate. Ultimately, because the claimant had presented to Dr. Batla in a wheelchair
in October 2015 (during the relevant period) and because Dr. Batla’s physical exam findings at
that time mirrored the findings he made in May 2016, it is probable the claimant was likewise not
capable of weightbearing activities at that time.
On remand, the ALJ must consider the May 3, 2016 record in conjunction with all the
other evidence currently in the record. The ALJ may conduct any additional proceedings that
are not inconsistent with this decision and must issue a new decision.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this case is REVERSED
and REMANDED for further proceedings.
This, the 14th day of February, 2019.

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

2