Walker v. Berryhill

Filing 15

JUDGMENT in favor of Jolynn Brown Walker against Nancy Berryhill. CASE CLOSED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roy Percy on 2/6/19. (bnd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION
JOLYNN BROWN WALKER

PLAINTIFF

vs.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:18CV101-RP

NANCY BERRYHILL,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

DEFENDANT

JUDGMENT
This cause is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)
for judicial review of an unfavorable final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration regarding an application for 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 record, the administrative transcript, the briefs of the parties, and the
applicable law, finds as follows:
The Commissioner’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence and is contrary to
law. The ALJ erroneously concluded that plaintiff’s past work as a cleaner at a hunting camp
constitutes past relevant work. Plaintiff’s earnings from that work -- averaging less than $900
per month -- were insufficient to qualify it as “substantial gainful employment” as is required for
a finding of “past relevant work.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.960(b)(1). Further, this case does not
present any circumstances under which information in addition to earnings will be considered.
20 C.F.R. § 416.974(b)(3)(ii). As such, plaintiff’s past work as a cleaner at a hunting camp does
not constitute past relevant work, and the ALJ’s finding at step four that plaintiff could perform

1

her past relevant work was error. In the absence of this erroneous finding, and given plaintiff’s
RFC, age, education, and previous work experience, the application of Medical Vocational
Guideline (“GRID”) Rule 202.04 results in a conclusion that plaintiff is disabled. The evidence
in the record being conclusive on this issue, a remand for further consideration of the disability
issue is unnecessary, and the court will render an award of supplemental security income
benefits. This case is remanded for the sole purpose of determining the amount of benefits to be
awarded.
Plaintiff having been allowed to proceed without the prepayment of costs, the Clerk’s
filing fee and the U.S. Marshal Service’s fee for service of process are assessed as costs against
plaintiff.
SO ORDERED, this, the 6th day of February, 2019.

/s/ Roy Percy
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2