SORANY v. Commissioner of Social Security
MEMORANDUM REJECTING IN PART REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE for 13 Report and Recommendations. ORDERED that the case is REMANDED for further review pursuant to sentence four. Signed by District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 3/13/2018. (daj, )
United States District Court
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MAJEED KAREEN SORANY
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
CASE NO. 4:16CV637
(Judge Mazzant/Judge Nowak)
MEMORANDUM REJECTING IN PART REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Came on for consideration the report of the United States Magistrate Judge in this action, this
matter having been heretofore referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636. On January 19, 2018, the report of the Magistrate Judge was entered containing proposed
findings of fact and recommendations that the decision of the Administrative Law Judge be affirmed.
The Court, having made a de novo review of the objections raised by Plaintiff, and noting
that the Commissioner did file a response to Plaintiff’s objections, finds as follows:
Plaintiff’s objection is that the Magistrate Judge erred in concluding the ALJ did not
improperly discount the examining physician’s opinion when determining Plaintiff’s residual
functional capacity. In rejecting the treating physician opinions, the ALJ gave significant weight to
Dr. Doyne’s opinion. Plaintiff asserts that despite giving Dr. Doyne’s opinions significant weight,
the ALJ failed to include Dr. Doyne’s opinion that Plaintiff needed to change positions frequently
and that he was unable to tolerate long plane flights or rugged or uneven terrain. The Magistrate
Judge found that this alleged error was harmless. The Court disagrees that this is harmless and did
not impact Plaintiff’s substantial rights. It is possible that Plaintiff’s inability to travel long distances
could preclude his past work as an interpreter as it is normally performed in the national economy.
Since the ALJ did not include these limitations or explain why these limitations were not included
in Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity, the case must be remanded for further consideration of
these additional limitations found by Dr. Doyne. If the ALJ determines that these limitations are
part of Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity, the ALJ should consider whether Plaintiff can perform
his past relevant work as normally performed in the national economy. The Commissioner’s
response to the objections makes arguments that should be considered by the ALJ in deciding these
issues. Plaintiff’s objection should be sustained.
For the reasons set forth herein, the Court hereby rejects in part the findings and conclusions
of the Magistrate Judge, as the findings and conclusions of this Court. It is therefore
ORDERED that the case is REMANDED for further review pursuant to sentence four.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this 13th day of March, 2018.
AMOS L. MAZZANT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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?