Sullivan v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration

Filing 20

Opinion and Order: The ALJ's finding that plaintiff is not disabled under the Act is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Accordingly, the decision of the Commissioner is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Signed on 11/12/10 by Chief Judge Ann L. Aiken. (lae)

Sullivan v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration
""J

---------

Doc. 20

,-

i="Ii

EIt"1t1 ~JniJ "I c tiCi :::'4'PF;Tn-o._If:. t ~ _,_I '_' ~!.... iJ_JJ'_' pO
' _ ' _!
t_"

·

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

HARRY J. SULLIVAN, Plaintiff,
v.

Civ. No. 09-904-AA OPINION AND ORDER

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant. AIKEN, Chief Judge: Plaintiff Commissioner's seeks final judicial decision review of the his Social Security for

denying

application

disability insurance benefits Security Act U.S'.C.
§

(DIB)

under Title II of the Social has jurisdiction under 42

(the Act).

This

court

405 (g).

The decision of the Commissioner is reversed and

remanded for further administrative proceedings. DISCUSSION On August 21, 2001, plaintiff applied for DIB. Plaintiff's 1 application was denied Tr. 19, 90-92. and on

initially

- OPINION AND ORDER

Dockets.Justia.com

recons testifi 60,

ration,

and

on

Ma

2,

2004

pIa

iff

appeared

and

before an administrat On i1 30 ,

law judge (ALJ). 2 004, the AL J is

Tr. 50-52, 57 a decision Tr.

1799-1835.

finding 957-63.

intiff not di On May 11, 2007,

within the meaning of the Act. Appeals Council

ed review and

the case to the ALJ with specific instructions to resolve issues pI involving the seve ty of plaintiff's impairments, 's

iff's symptoms and residual functional lity, rments. and cal evidence relevant

city, plainti to

plaintiff's

Tr. 971-75.

In particular, from a medical

Is Court ordered rt to clarify t Tr. 974.

ALJ to "obtain nature and severity of t On November 29, dur which plaintiff 2007,

claimant's impairments[.]" the ALJ conducted a

second hearing, On December

in testified.

Tr. 1836-54.

19, 2007, the ALJ iss the meaning of s decision, the ALJ cal expert
I

cis i o n finding Act. Tr. 19 8.

aintiff not disabl However, in rea

not obtain the opinion or testimony of a the nature relevant the per severity of at issue. In fail iff's to

tations during

do so, the ALJ e Pursuant to 20 C.F.R.
§

404.977,

the Appeals may hold a

Council may rand tional
i

a case to an ALJ "so that he or

issue a decision or a recommended decision," to obtain" evidence" when or to take "additi action" as

2

- OPINION AND ORDER

rd.

§

404.977(a). t

Once a case is

, the ALJ "shall take any Is Council and may ta istent with the als

action t additional

is ordered by the action that is Id. not
§

Council's remand order." actions
0

404.977 (b)

(emphasis added) . 1 on remand are not

by

the

Appeals
§

discretiona by the

See 20 C.F.R.

404.983 (IIIf the case is s explained in
§

als Council, the (emphasis added).

404.977

be followed. ") In for capa from a cla direct with t is
1

is case, the Appeals Council remanded the case to t r consideration of specifically
t

ALJ iona"l

i

's impairments and the ALJ to "obta nature and severity ALJ failed to s that the ALJ did argues that the court's

cal expert to clari 's impairments.
n

the

Tr. 974.

llow this comply ew of the

The Commissioner Is Council's a to the ALJ's is

the

final

decision

Commissioner.

Regardless,

issue before the court is whether

ALJ complied with his

1 relevant legal standards and supported

ision with substantial evidence in the reco

See Batson

359 F.3d1190, 1193 (9th Cir. ·2004) . The ALJ's compliance with the Appeals is relevant to this t il ALJ did not adhere to t to develop the termination. Ult l's order on ely, I find that rementsand als Council.

relevant regulatory re as instructed by

3

- OPINION AND ORDER

Therefore,

ssioner's decision cannot

upheld.

The Commissioner also maintains or seeking not have altered is inappropriate further r information from an ALJ's final decis r this court to rna s is required to

calling a medical expert ing physician wou However, such a ng

Accordingly, remand for opinion of a ntiff's impairments as I decline to ss

expert as to the nature and severity of pI of December 31, 1992, his date last insured.

plaintiff's remaining assignments of error, given that additional medical and
,i

opinion could alter uding his determinat

ALJ's findings at st of credibility.

two

For disab the REVERSED

se reasons,

the ALJ's finding that plainti ed by substantial

is not in

under the Act is not s Accordingly, REMANDED for

the decision of the Commissioner is r proceedings consistent with

s

IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this

,~~y

November, 2010.

Ann Aiken
U n i t e d States District Judge

4

OPINION AND ORDER