Davis v. Colvin

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER granting Plaintiff's 8 Motion for Summary Judgment and denying Defendant's 11 Motion for Summary Judgment. The decision of the Commissioner is reversed and the case is remanded for further administrative proceedings. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 9/25/2017. (nvc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 5:16-CV-00016-MR
JEFFREY D. DAVIS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
NANCY A. BERRYILL,
)
Acting Commissioner of Social
)
Security
)
)
Defendant.
)
_______________________________ )

MEMORANDUM OF
DECISION AND ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment [Doc. 8] and the Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment [Doc. 11]. As more fully explained below, the Court will grant the
Plaintiff’s motion and remand this matter.
I.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The Plaintiff, Jeffrey D. Davis (“Plaintiff”) asserts that his right rotator

cuff pain, depression, and anxiety constitute severe mental and physical
impairments under the Social Security Act (the “Act”) rendering him disabled.
On February 27, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for disability benefits
under Title II of the Act and protectively filed a Title XVI application for

supplemental security income, alleging an onset date of August 1, 2011.
[Transcript (“T.”) at 23]. The Plaintiff’s application was denied initially and
upon reconsideration. [Id.]. Upon Plaintiff’s request, a hearing was held on
May 9, 2014, before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). [Id.]. Present at
the hearing were the Plaintiff; Bill P. Gordon, the Plaintiff’s attorney; and a
vocational expert (“VE”). [Id.]. On June 26, 2014, the ALJ issued a decision,
wherein the ALJ concluded that the Plaintiff was not disabled. [Id. at 23-32].
On November 24, 2015, the Appeals Council denied the Plaintiff’s request
for review [Id. at 1], thereby making the ALJ’s decision the final decision of
the Commissioner. The Plaintiff has exhausted all available administrative
remedies, and this case is now ripe for review pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
405(g).
II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court’s review of a final decision of the Commissioner is limited to

(1) whether substantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s decision,
Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971); and (2) whether the
Commissioner applied the correct legal standards, Hays v. Sullivan, 907
F.2d 1453, 1456 (4th Cir. 1990).

“When examining [a Social Security

Administration] disability determination, a reviewing court is required to
uphold the determination when an ALJ has applied correct legal standards
2

and the ALJ’s factual findings are supported by substantial evidence.” Bird
v. Comm’r, 699 F.3d 337, 340 (4th Cir. 2012). “Substantial evidence is such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support
a conclusion.” Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650, 653 (4th Cir. 2005)
(internal quotation marks omitted). “It consists of more than a mere scintilla
of evidence but may be less than a preponderance.” Hancock v. Astrue, 667
F.3d 470, 472 (4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted).
“In reviewing for substantial evidence, [the Court should] not undertake
to reweigh conflicting evidence, make credibility determinations, or substitute
[its] judgment for that of the ALJ.”

Johnson, 434 F.3d at 653 (internal

quotation marks and alteration omitted).

Rather, “[w]here conflicting

evidence allows reasonable minds to differ,” the Court defers to the ALJ’s
decision. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). To enable judicial review
for substantial evidence, “[t]he record should include a discussion of which
evidence the ALJ found credible and why, and specific application of the
pertinent legal requirements to the record evidence.” Radford v. Colvin, 734
F.3d 288, 295 (4th Cir. 2013).
III.

THE SEQUENTIAL EVALUATION PROCESS
A “disability” entitling a claimant to benefits under the Social Security

Act, as relevant here, is “[the] inability to engage in any substantial gainful

3

activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental
impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or
can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.”
42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). The Social Security Administration Regulations
set out a detailed five-step process for reviewing applications for disability.
20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920; Mascio v. Colvin, 780 F.3d 632, 634 (4th
Cir. 2015). “If an applicant’s claim fails at any step of the process, the ALJ
need not advance to the subsequent steps.” Pass v. Chater, 65 F.3d 1200,
1203 (4th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). The burden is on the claimant to
make the requisite showing at the first four steps. Id.
At step one, the ALJ determines whether the claimant is engaged in
substantial gainful activity.

If so, the claimant’s application is denied

regardless of the medical condition, age, education, or work experience of
the claimant. Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 416.920). If not, the case progresses to
step two, where the claimant must show a severe impairment. If the claimant
does not show any physical or mental deficiencies, or a combination thereof,
which significantly limit the claimant’s ability to perform work activities, then
no severe impairment is established and the claimant is not disabled. Id.
At step three, the ALJ must determine whether one or more of the
claimant’s impairments meets or equals one of the listed impairments
4

(“Listings”) found at 20 C.F.R. 404, Appendix 1 to Subpart P. If so, the
claimant is automatically deemed disabled regardless of age, education or
work experience. Id. If not, before proceeding to step four, the ALJ must
assess the claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”). The RFC is an
administrative assessment of “the most” a claimant can still do on a “regular
and continuing basis” notwithstanding the claimant’s medically determinable
impairments and the extent to which those impairments affect the claimant’s
ability to perform work-related functions.

SSR 96-8p; 20 C.F.R. §§

404.1546(c); 404.943(c); 416.945.
At step four, the claimant must show that his or her limitations prevent
the claimant from performing his or her past work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520,
416.920; Mascio, 780 F.3d at 634. If the claimant can still perform his or her
past work, then the claimant is not disabled.

Id.

Otherwise, the case

progresses to the fifth step where the burden shifts to the Commissioner. At
step five, the Commissioner must establish that, given the claimant’s age,
education, work experience, and RFC, the claimant can perform alternative
work which exists in substantial numbers in the national economy. Id.; Hines
v. Barnhart, 453 F.3d 559, 567 (4th Cir. 2006). “The Commissioner typically
offers this evidence through the testimony of a vocational expert responding
to a hypothetical that incorporates the claimant’s limitations.” 20 C.F.R. §§
5

404.1520, 416.920; Mascio, 780 F.3d at 635. If the Commissioner succeeds
in shouldering her burden at step five, the claimant is not disabled and the
application for benefits must be denied. Id. Otherwise, the claimant is
entitled to benefits. In this case, the ALJ rendered a determination adverse
to the Plaintiff at the fifth step.
IV.

THE ALJ’S DECISION
At step one, the ALJ found that Plaintiff has not engaged in substantial

gainful activity since his alleged onset date, August 1, 2011. [T. at 25]. At
step two, the ALJ found that the Plaintiff has severe impairments including
right rotator cuff pain, depression, and anxiety. [Id.]. At step three, the ALJ
determined that the Plaintiff does not have an impairment or combination of
impairments that meets or medically equals the Listings. [Id. at 26]. The ALJ
then determined that the Plaintiff, notwithstanding his impairments, has the
RFC:
[T]o perform light work as defined in 20 CFR
404.1567(b) and 416.967(b) except the he is limited
to occasional reaching with the dominant right upper
extremity, needs to avoid concentrated exposure to
hazards, and is limited to simple, routine, repetitive
tasks in a stable environment at a nonproduction
pace with occasional public contact.
[Id. at 27].

6

The ALJ identified Plaintiff’s past relevant work as a rip saw operator,
a frame builder, and a material handler. [Id. at 30]. The ALJ observed,
however, that because the Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity limitation to
light work is inconsistent with the classification of these jobs as medium to
heavy work, the Plaintiff “is unable to perform past relevant work.” [Id.].
With the Plaintiff having carried his burden through the first four steps,
the ALJ then assessed whether, at step five, the Commissioner could meet
her burden of showing the availability of jobs Plaintiff is able to do, given his
RFC. [Id. at 31]. Based upon the testimony of the VE, the ALJ concluded
that, considering Plaintiff’s age, education, work experience, and RFC, there
were other jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that
he was able to perform, including shipping and receiving weigher. [Id.]. The
ALJ therefore concluded that the Plaintiff was not “disabled” as defined by
the Social Security Act from August 1, 2011, the alleged onset date, through
June 26, 2014, the date of the ALJ’s decision. [Id.].
V.

DISCUSSION1
In this appeal, the Plaintiff asserts three assignments of error. First,

Plaintiff contends the ALJ failed to comply with SSR 00-4p in failing to resolve

Rather than set forth a separate summary of the facts in this case, the Court has
incorporated the relevant facts into its legal analysis.
1

7

a conflict between the VE’s testimony and the Dictionary of Occupational
Titles (DOT). Second, Plaintiff argues the ALJ erred in rejecting the opinion
of Plaintiff’s treating family practice nurse, Tanya Dyer, FNP-C (“Nurse
Dyer”). Finally, Plaintiff contends the ALJ erred in assessing his mental
residual functional capacity.

The Plaintiff argues these errors require

remand. [See Doc. 9 at 12, 18, 23]. The Defendant, on the other hand,
asserts that the ALJ’s reliance on the VE’s testimony was proper, that
substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s evaluation of Nurse Dyer’s opinions,
and that, to the extent there was any error in the RFC assessment, it was
harmless. [See Doc. 12 at 6-21]. Having considered the arguments raised
by both parties, the Court concludes that the ALJ erred in one of the three
ways argued by Plaintiff.
A.

The VE Testimony.

Plaintiff argues the ALJ improperly relied on the VE’s determination
that Plaintiff could work as a shipping and receiving weigher.

Plaintiff

contends that this job requires a reasoning level of “3” and that this is
inconsistent with the RFC assessment limiting Plaintiff to simple, routine,
repetitive tasks. Level 3, according to the DOT, requires a person to
Apply common sense understanding to carry out
instructions furnished in written, oral, or
diagrammatic form. Deal with problems involving
8

several concrete variables in or from standardized
situations.
DOT, Appendix C, Section III. “There is no direct correlation between the
DOT’s reasoning levels and a limitation to carrying out simple instructions or
performing simple work; thus, jobs requiring an individual to perform such
work [are] consistent with a DOT reasoning level of either 2 or 3.” Martin v.
Colvin, No. 1:14-cv-234, 2015 WL 9094738, at *5 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 16, 2015
(Voorhees, J.) (quoting Carringer v. Colvin, No. 2:13-cv-00027-MOC, 2014
WL 1281122, at *3 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 27, 2014) (Cogburn, J.); see also Clontz
v. Astrue, No. 2:12-cv-00013, 2013 WL 3899507, at *5 (W.D.N.C. July 29,
2013) (Whitney, J.); Thacker v. Astrue, No. 3:11-cv-246-GCM-DSC, 2011
WL 7154218, at *4 (W.D.N.C. Nov. 28, 2011) (Cayer, J.); Williams v. Astrue,
No. 3:11-cv-592, 2012 WL 4756066, at *4 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 27, 2012) (Cayer,
J.). While Plaintiff cites to several cases in which other courts found an
inconsistency between an RFC limiting a claimant to simple, routine,
repetitive tasks and a job with a DOT classification of a reasoning level three
[Doc. 9 at 17-8], these cases, to the extent they support Plaintiff’s position,
are not dispositive. Courts in the Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth,
and Eleventh Circuits have held there is no conflict between a job classified
at reasoning level three and a limitation to simple, routine, unskilled work.
Willilams, 2012 WL 4756066, at *4 (citations omitted). As the Court finds
9

there is no inconsistency to resolve, the ALJ made no error in accepting the
VE’s testimony that Plaintiff could perform the job of shipping and receiving
weigher.
B.

The Opinion of Nurse Dyer.

Plaintiff contends the ALJ erred in rejecting and assigning no weight to
the opinion of Plaintiff’s treating family practice nurse, Nurse Dyer, and in
failing to give “legally sufficient” reasons for this rejection. [Doc. 9 at 21].
Nurse Dyer is a certified family nurse practitioner and, therefore, is
considered a health care provider who is not an “acceptable medical source”
under the Regulations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1513(d) & 416.913(d).
Nurse Dyer had treated the Plaintiff for approximately two years at
the time she prepared a Medical Opinion Re: Ability To Do Work-Related
Activities on August 5, 2013.2 [T. at 363]. In this Opinion, Nurse Dyer notes
Plaintiff’s symptoms as “chronic pain to shoulder” and his treatment as
“chronic pain meds.”

She then, however, assesses other limitations of

Nurse Dyer prepared two other medical opinion questionnaires in the same format as
the one at issue. [See T. at 406-7, 411]. These other questionnaires are dated December
5, 2013, and March 13, 2014. The opinions expressed in the three questionnaires are
somewhat inconsistent and conflicting. [See T. at 363, 406-7, 411]. Plaintiff’s
memorandum references and presents argument only with respect to the “first
questionnaire.” [Doc. 9 at 21]. The Court’s review, therefore, is limited to the opinions
expressed by Nurse Dyer in the August 5, 2013 questionnaire. The result reached by the
Court on this issue would be the same, however, were the other two questionnaires
considered in evaluating the propriety of the weight assigned to Nurse Dyer’s opinions,
as they lend no support to Plaintiff’s argument on this issue.
2

10

Plaintiff unrelated to his shoulder. Namely, she opines that Plaintiff can stand
and walk during an 8-hour workday for a maximum of only two hours and
that Plaintiff “needs the freedom to shift at will between sitting or
standing/walking.” [Id.].
The ALJ considered Nurse Dyer’s opinions and decided to attribute “no
weight” to them because they “reflect greater limitations than supported by
the record of evidence.” [Id. at 28]. The ALJ also notes:
[T]he responses were provided by [someone] who is
neither a doctor or specialist, and denote diagnosis
and findings specific to the right shoulder, but assess
limitations in the ability to sit, stand and walk. No
medical rationale was provided evidencing the
correlation between shoulder problems and
assessed limitations in the ability to sit, stand and
walk.
[Id.]. The ALJ then evaluated the opinions of several “acceptable medical
sources” that had examined the Plaintiff and accorded these opinions
“significant weight” in his determination of the nature and severity of Plaintiff’s
impairments.

[Id. at 29-30]. Specifically, the ALJ consulted the record

evidence and identified medical source opinions that supported his ultimate
physical residual functional capacity assessment, as well as his rejection of
Nurse Dryer’s opinions. [See id.].
SSR 06-03p prescribes how the Commissioner is to consider opinions
from sources who are not “acceptable medical sources.” Plaintiff argues,
11

“SSR 06-03p recognizes under certain circumstance[s], an opinion from a
‘non-medical source’ that has seen the claimant in his or her professional
capacity may ‘properly be determined to outweigh the opinion from a medical
source, including a treating source.’” [Doc. 9 at 21 (citing SSR 06-03p)].
Plaintiff’s assertion is correct but incomplete. The Regulations more fully
state:
[A]n opinion from a medical source who is not an
“acceptable medical source” may outweigh the
opinion of an “acceptable medical source,” including
the medical opinion of a treating source. For
example, it may be appropriate to give more weight
to the opinion of a medical source who is not an
“acceptable medical source” if he or she has seen the
individual more often than the treating source and
has provided better supporting evidence and a better
explanation for his or her opinion.
SSR 06-03p (emphasis added). Plaintiff, however, does not outline any
circumstances in this case that warrant giving Nurse Dyer’s opinion more
weight than the opinions of several acceptable medical sources. Because
the Regulations and the record evidence as a whole, which includes several
medical source opinions afforded “significant weight” by the ALJ, support the
rejection of Nurse Dyer’s opinions, this assignment of error must be
overruled.

12

C.

The RFC Assessment.

Plaintiff also assigns error to the ALJ’s mental RFC assessment.
Namely, Plaintiff contends the ALJ failed to give a complete function-byfunction analysis of the nonexertional mental functions associated with
Plaintiff’s difficulties in broad areas of functioning and failed to make a
complete finding as to Plaintiff’s mental RFC.
Social Security Ruling 96-8p explains how adjudicators should assess
residual functional capacity. The Ruling instructs that the RFC “assessment
must first identify the individual’s functional limitations or restrictions and
assess his or her work-related abilities on a function-by-function basis,
including the functions” listed in the Regulations.3 SSR 96-8p; see also,
Mascio, 780 F.3d at 636 (remand may be appropriate where an ALJ fails to
assess a claimant’s capacity to perform relevant functions, despite
contradictory evidence in the record, or where other inadequacies in the
ALJ’s analysis frustrate meaningful review) (citation omitted).

The functions listed in the Regulations include the claimant’s (1) physical abilities, “such
as sitting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying, pushing, pulling, or other physical functions
(including manipulative or postural functions, such as reaching, handling, stooping or
crouching);” (2) mental abilities, “such as limitations in understanding, remembering, and
carrying out instructions, and in responding appropriately to supervision, coworkers, and
work pressures in a work setting;” and (3) other work-related abilities affected by
“impairment(s) of vision, hearing or other senses, and impairment(s) which impose
environmental restrictions.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.945.
3

13

When a plaintiff’s claim is based on severe mental health impairments,
the Social Security Rules and Regulations require a much more in-depth
review and analysis of the plaintiff’s past mental health history.

The

Regulations make plain that “[p]articular problems are often involved in
evaluating mental impairments in individuals who have long histories of …
prolonged outpatient care with supportive therapy and medication.”
C.F.R. § 404, Appendix 1 to Subpart P, § 12.00(E).

20

The Regulations,

therefore, set forth a mechanism for this type of review and documentation,
known as the “special technique,” to assist ALJs in assessing a claimant’s
mental RFC. See SSR 96-8P; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520a, 416.920a.
With regard to mental health issues, “[t]he determination of mental
RFC is crucial to the evaluation of your capacity to do [substantial gainful
activity] when your impairment(s) does not meet or equal the criteria of the
listings, but is nevertheless severe.” 20 C.F.R. § 404, Appendix 1 to Subpart
P, § 12.00(A). Therefore, the determination of mental RFC, as noted above,
is accomplished through the use of the aforementioned “special technique.”
Under the special technique, we must first evaluate
your pertinent symptoms, signs, and laboratory
findings to determine whether you have a medically
determinable mental impairment(s)….
If we
determine that you have a medically determinable
mental impairment(s), we must specify the
symptoms, signs, and laboratory findings that
14

substantiate the presence of the impairment(s) and
document our findings[.]
20 C.F.R. § 404.1520a(b). For this reason, Rule 96-8p explains as follows:
The RFC assessment must include a narrative
discussion describing how the evidence supports
each conclusion, citing specific medical facts (e.g.,
laboratory findings) and nonmedical evidence (e.g.,
daily activities, observations). In assessing RFC, the
adjudicator must discuss the individual’s ability to
perform sustained work activities in an ordinary work
setting on a regular and continuing basis (i.e., 8
hours a day, for 5 days a week, or an equivalent work
schedule), and describe the maximum amount of
each work-related activity the individual can perform
based on the evidence available in the case record.
SSR 96-8p. “Only after that may RFC be expressed in terms of the exertional
levels of work, sedentary, light, medium, heavy, and very heavy.” Id.
In this case, the ALJ failed to conduct any function-by-function analysis
of Plaintiff’s mental health limitations and work-related abilities prior to
expressing his RFC assessment. [See T. at 26-7]. At step three, in deciding
Plaintiff’s mental impairments did not meet or medically equal the “Paragraph
B” criteria in listings 12.04 (depressive, bipolar and related disorders) or
12.06 (anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorders),4 the ALJ made findings

Paragraph B of these listings provides the functional criteria assessed, in conjunction
with a rating scale, to evaluate how a claimant’s mental disorder limits his functioning.
These criteria represent the areas of mental functioning a person uses in a work setting.
They are: Understand, remember, or apply information; interact with others; concentrate,
persist, or maintain pace; and adapt or manage oneself. 20 C.F.R. § 404, Appendix 1 to
Subpart P, § 12.00(A).
4

15

on Plaintiff’s limitations and difficulties relative to activities of daily living;
social functioning; concentration, persistence or pace; and episodes of
decompensation. [Id.]. The ALJ then noted:
The limitations identified in the “paragraph B” criteria
are not a residual functional capacity assessment but
are used to rate the severity of mental impairments
at steps 2 and 3 of the sequential evaluation process.
The mental residual functional capacity assessment
used at steps 4 and 5 of the sequential evaluation
process requires a more detailed assessment by
itemizing various functions contained in the broad
categories found in paragraph B of the adult mental
disorders listings in 12.00 of the Listing of
Impairments (SSR 96-8p). Therefore, the following
residual functional capacity assessment reflects the
degree of limitation the undersigned has found in the
“paragraph B” mental function analysis.
[T. at 27 (emphasis added)].
By finding in step three that Plaintiff suffers from mild restriction in
activities of daily living; moderate difficulties in social functioning; and
moderate difficulties in concentration, persistence or pace, the ALJ found
that facts exist which correlate with a limitation on Plaintiff’s ability to carry
out the areas of mental functioning listed in Paragraph B. In formulating
Plaintiff’s RFC, however, the ALJ failed to explain whether these limitations
translated into any actual functional limitations. It appears the ALJ attempted
to account for Plaintiff’s moderate difficulties with concentration, persistence
or pace by limiting Plaintiff to “simple, routine, repetitive tasks in a stable
16

environment at a nonproduction pace.” [T. at 27]. A limitation to simple,
repetitive tasks at a non-production pace, however, does not “account for a
limitation in concentration, persistence or pace.” Mascio, 780 F.3d at 638;
see also Kitrell v. Colvin, No. 5:14-cv-163-RJC, 2016 WL 1048070, at *4
(W.D.N.C. March 6, 2016) (Conrad, J.); Scruggs v. Colvin, No. 3:14-cv-466MOC, 2015 WL 2250890, at *5-6 (W.D.N.C. May 13, 2015) (Cogburn, J.).
Furthermore, with respect to the limitation of “occasional public contact,”
there is no explanation from the ALJ as to the basis for this limitation or how
it accounts for any of Plaintiff’s limitations, if at all. A reviewing court cannot
be “left to guess about how the ALJ arrived at his conclusions on [a plaintiff’s]
ability to perform relevant functions and indeed, remain uncertain as to what
the ALJ intended.” Mascio, 780 F.3d at 637. It is the duty of the ALJ to “build
an accurate and logical bridge from the evidence to his conclusion.” Monroe
v. Colvin, 826 F.3d 176, 189 (4th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). “Without this
explanation, the reviewing court cannot properly evaluate whether the ALJ
applied the correct legal standard or whether substantial evidence supports
his decisions, and the only recourse is to remand the matter for additional
investigation and explanations.” Mills v. Berryhill, No. 1:16-cv-25-MR, 2017
WL 957542, at *4 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 10, 2017) (Reidinger, J.) (citation omitted).
As the Fourth Circuit stated in Mascio, “[p]erhaps the ALJ can explain why
17

[Plaintiff’s] moderate limitation in concentration, persistence or pace … does
not translate into a limitation in [his] residual functional capacity…. But
because the ALJ gave no explanation, a remand is in order.” 780 F.3d at
638.
For these reasons, this matter will be remanded to the ALJ so that he
may properly articulate his assessment of the Plaintiff’s mental impairments
before expressing an RFC determination. See Mascio, 780 F.3d at 636. A
careful function-by-function analysis of Plaintiff’s mental limitations and work
abilities is crucial to the ALJ’s ability to thereafter “build an accurate and
logical bridge from the evidence to his conclusion.” Monroe, 826 F.3d at 189
(citation omitted). A narrative assessment describing how the evidence
supports each conclusion, as required by SSR 96-8p, is essential and should
account for Plaintiff’s limitations in concentration, persistence or pace and
social functioning and include an assessment of whether Plaintiff can
perform work-related tasks for a full work day. See Scruggs, 2015 WL
2250890, at *5 (applying Mascio to find an ALJ must not only provide an
explanation of how a plaintiff’s mental limitations affect her ability to perform
work-related functions, but also her ability to perform them for a full workday).

18

VI.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, remand is required. On remand, the ALJ

should conduct a proper function-by-function analysis of the Plaintiff’s mental
residual functional capacity in accordance with and evidencing use of the
“special technique” set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520a(b) and Rule 96-8p.
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment [Doc. 8] is GRANTED and the Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment [Doc. 11] is DENIED. Pursuant to the power of this
Court to enter judgment affirming, modifying or reversing the decision of the
Commissioner under Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the decision of
the Commissioner is REVERSED and the case is hereby REMANDED for
further administrative proceedings consistent with this opinion. A judgment
shall be entered simultaneously herewith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: September 25, 2017

19