O'Bryant v. Commissioner of Social Security
ORDER granting 17 Motion to Remand to Social Security. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roy Percy on 3/9/18. (bnd)
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
CIVIL CASE NO. 4:17-CV-103-RP
Acting Commissioner of Social Security
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND
Plaintiff Donald O’Bryant filed suit seeking judicial review of the unfavorable decision
of the Commissioner of Social Security denying plaintiff’s claim for disability insurance benefits
and supplemental security income. The Commissioner moved to remand under the fourth
sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) due to the need of an additional hearing to obtain the testimony
of Dr. Darrell Blaylock. Docket 18. The plaintiff has responded to the Motion to Remand,
noting his objection to the remand, but failing to provide any legal basis upon which the court
should deny the motion to remand. Because both parties have consented to have a magistrate
judge conduct all the proceedings in this case as provided in 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the undersigned
has the authority to issue this opinion.
The Commissioner’s Motion to Remand acknowledges that the case should be remanded
to allow a supplemental hearing at which Darrell N. Blaylock, M.D. will testify and be crossexamined by the plaintiff. Docket 18. Although the plaintiff opposes the motion, the relief
requested is essentially the same as that requested by the plaintiff in his filing dated February 6,
2018 (Doc. 16) – the opportunity to examine Dr. Blaylock. After reviewing the motion,
response and record, the undersigned concludes that remand is proper as the testimony of
examining physician Dr. Darrell Blaylock is necessary to make a proper determination of
plaintiff’s abilities. The Commissioner’s Motion to Remand is therefore GRANTED and this
case is closed.
This, the 9th day of March, 2018.
/s/ Roy Percy
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?