Mays v. Colvin
Filing
14
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Magistrate Judge Pamela Meade Sargent on 03/31/2016. (Bordwine, Robin)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
BIG STONE GAP DIVISION
MELISSA S. MAYS,
Plaintiff
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of
Social Security,
Defendant
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 2:14cv00018
MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY: PAMELA MEADE SARGENT
United States Magistrate Judge
I. Background and Standard of Review
Plaintiff, Melissa S. Mays, (“Mays”), filed this action challenging the final
decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, (“Commissioner”), determining
that she was not eligible for disability insurance benefits, (“DIB”), under the Social
Security Act, as amended, (“Act”), 42 U.S.C.A. § 423 (West 2011). Jurisdiction of
this court is pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). This case is before the undersigned
magistrate judge by transfer based on consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c)(1). Oral argument has not been requested; therefore, the matter is ripe for
decision.
The court’s review in this case is limited to determining if the factual
findings of the Commissioner are supported by substantial evidence and were
reached through application of the correct legal standards. See Coffman v. Bowen,
829 F.2d 514, 517 (4th Cir. 1987). Substantial evidence has been defined as
“evidence which a reasoning mind would accept as sufficient to support a
-1-
particular conclusion. It consists of more than a mere scintilla of evidence but may
be somewhat less than a preponderance.” Laws v. Celebrezze, 368 F.2d 640, 642
(4th Cir. 1966). ‘“If there is evidence to justify a refusal to direct a verdict were the
case before a jury, then there is “‘substantial evidence.’”” Hays v. Sullivan, 907
F.2d 1453, 1456 (4th Cir. 1990) (quoting Laws, 368 F.2d at 642).
The record shows that Mays protectively filed an application 1 for DIB on
October 21, 2010, alleging disability as of October 9, 2008, due to multiple
sclerosis, (“MS”); depression; anxiety; fatigue; and methylenetetrahydrofolate
reductase, (“MTHFR”) 2. (Record, (“R.”), at 217-18, 230, 234.) The claim was
denied initially and on reconsideration. (R. at 85-87, 91-93, 97-99, 110-14, 11618.) Mays then requested a hearing before an administrative law judge, (“ALJ”),
(R. at 119.) A hearing was held by video conferencing on January 29, 2013, at
which Mays was represented by counsel. (R. at 35-55.)
By decision dated February 11, 2013, the ALJ denied Mays’s claim. (R. at
14-24.) The ALJ found that Mays met the nondisability insured status requirements
of the Act for DIB purposes through December 31, 2013. (R. at 16.) The ALJ also
found that Mays had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since October 9,
2008, her alleged onset date. 3 (R. at 16.) The ALJ found that the medical evidence
1
Mays also filed an application for supplemental security income, (“SSI”), which was
denied because her spouse earned too much income. (R. at 102-05, 221-25.)
2
MTHFR is a genetic disorder which can result in central nervous system damage. See
DORLAND’S ILLUSTRATED MEDICAL DICTIONARY, (“Dorland’s”), 1031 (28th ed. 1994).
3
Therefore, Mays must show that she became disabled between October 9, 2008, the
alleged onset date, and February 11, 2013, the date of the ALJ’s decision, in order to be entitled
to DIB benefits.
-2-
established that Mays suffered from severe impairments, namely MS; a blood
disorder; fatigue; depression; and anxiety, but he found that Mays did not have an
impairment or combination of impairments listed at or medically equal to one
listed at 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. (R. at 16.) The ALJ found that
Mays had the residual functional capacity to perform light work 4 that did not
require more than occasional climbing of ramps and stairs, balancing, stooping,
kneeling, crouching, crawling and reaching; that did not require climbing ladders,
ropes or scaffolds, concentrated exposure to cold, heat, wetness, humidity and
vibration; that did not require moderate exposure to work hazards, fumes, odors,
dusts and gases; and that required only one- to two-step job instructions. (R. at 18.)
The ALJ found that Mays had no past relevant work. 5 (R. at 22.) Based on Mays’s
age, education, work history and residual functional capacity and the testimony of
a vocational expert, the ALJ found that jobs existed in significant numbers in the
national economy that Mays could perform, including jobs as an usher, a
laminating machine operator and a tanning salon attendant. (R. at 23.) Thus, the
ALJ found that Mays was not under a disability as defined by the Act and was not
eligible for DIB benefits. (R. at 23-24.) See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(g) (2015).
After the ALJ issued his decision, Mays pursued her administrative appeals,
(R. at 6-9), but the Appeals Council denied her request for review. (R. at 1-4.)
Mays then filed this action seeking review of the ALJ’s unfavorable decision,
which now stands as the Commissioner’s final decision. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.981
4
Light work involves lifting items weighing up to 20 pounds at a time with frequent
lifting or carrying of items weighing up to 10 pounds. If someone can perform light work, she
also can perform sedentary work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(b) (2015).
5
While the ALJ noted that Mays had prior work experience, he found that her earnings
did not meet the requisite substantial gainful activity earnings level. (R. at 22.)
-3-
(2015). The case is before this court on Mays’s motion for summary judgment
filed January 13, 2015, and the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment
filed February 17, 2015.
II. Facts
Mays was born in 1987, (R. at 217), which classifies her as a “younger
person” under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1563(c). She has a high school education and
completed a few college classes. (R. at 39, 234.) She has past work experience as a
secretary, a cook and a cashier. (R. at 40, 235.) She stated that she could not work
due to fatigue and pain. (R. at 41.)
Vocational expert, Mark Hileman, also testified at Mays’s hearing. (R. at 4954.) Hileman classified Mays’s work as a general secretary as sedentary 6 and
skilled, and her work as a cook and food service worker as light and semi-skilled.
(R. at 51-52.) Hileman was asked to consider a hypothetical individual of Mays’s
age, education and work experience, who would be limited to light work that did
not require more than occasional climbing of stairs and ramps; balancing, stooping;
kneeling; crouching; crawling; and reaching; that did not require her to climb
ladders, scaffolds and ropes; that did not require concentrated exposure to cold,
heat, wetness, humidity and vibration; that did not require moderate exposure to
working hazards, fumes, odors, dusts and gases; and that would require only oneto two-step job instructions. (R. at 52.) Hileman stated that such an individual
6
Sedentary work involves lifting items weighing up to 10 pounds at a time and
occasionally lifting or carrying articles like docket files, ledgers and small tools. Although a
sedentary job is defined as one which involves sitting, a certain amount of walking or standing is
often necessary in carrying out job duties. Jobs are sedentary if walking or standing are required
occasionally and other sedentary criteria are met. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(a) (2015).
-4-
could not perform Mays’s past work, but could perform other jobs existing in
significant numbers in the national economy, including those of an usher, a
laminating machine operator and a tanning salon attendant. (R. at 52-53.) Hileman
was asked to consider the same individual, but who would have no useful ability to
deal with work stresses and to demonstrate reliability, and who would be absent
more than three days a month. (R. at 53.) He stated that there would be no jobs
available that such an individual could perform. (R. at 53.)
In rendering his decision, the ALJ reviewed medical records from Wise
County Public Schools; Louis Perrott, Ph.D., a state agency psychologist; Dr.
Richard Surrusco, M.D., a state agency physician; Howard S. Leizer, Ph.D., a state
agency psychologist; Dr. Michael Hartman, M.D., a state agency physician;
Holston Valley Hospital; Mountain View Regional Medical Center; Wise Medical
Group; April Stidham, F.N.P., a family nurse practitioner; Medical Associates of
Southwest Virginia; Associated Neurologists of Kingsport; Robert S. Spangler,
Ed.D., a licensed psychologist; Dr. Michelle L. Brewer, M.D., a neurologist; Dr.
Victoria Grady, M.D.; Dr. Shawn Christopher Smith, D.O.; Dr. Souhail Shamiyeh,
M.D.; Dr. Felix E. Shepard, Jr., M.D.; Norton Community Hospital; and Susan
Myers, L.C.S.W., a licensed clinical social worker.
On January 10, 2007, Dr. Michelle L. Brewer, M.D., a neurologist, reported
that Mays was alert and oriented, she had fluent speech, intact memory and good
fund of knowledge. (R. at 637-39.) Mays’s visual fields were full to confrontation.
(R. at 638.) Sensory, motor and cerebellar examinations were intact, as was her
-5-
gait. (R. at 638.) Dr. Brewer diagnosed MS with positive oligoclonal bands,7
elevated cerebrospinal fluid with white matter lesions and an enhancing lesion in
the brainstem, as well as possible venous angioma. (R. at 638.)
The record shows that Mays was treated by Dr. Souhail Shamiyeh, M.D.,
and April Stidham, F.N.P., a family nurse practitioner, from 2008 through 2012 for
complaints of kidney stones; MS; MTHFR; anxiety; panic attacks; and shoulder
pain. (R. at 351-417, 469-94, 642-64.) On December 13, 2011, Mays reported that
her MS was doing well and that her symptoms of depression and anxiety were
controlled with medication. (R. at 660.) On June 13, 2012, Mays reported that her
symptoms of anxiety were “mild.” (R. at 642.) She reported “good” symptom
control with medication. (R. at 642.) Dr. Shamiyeh noted that Mays’s examination
was normal. (R. at 643-44.)
On October 7, 2010, Dr. Douglas A. Wright, M.D., a neurologist, examined
Mays. (R. at 447-51.) Mays complained of an allergic reaction to her MS
medication. (R. at 447-48.) She reported intermittent migraine headaches, anxiety
and depression. (R. at 448.) Dr. Wright reported that Mays’s examination was
normal. (R. at 448-50.) Mays was oriented; her recent and remote memory were
normal; her attention span and concentration were normal; her language was
normal; and her fund of knowledge was normal. (R. at 449.) No major anxiety was
noted. (R. at 449.) Mays reported that she had no complications with regard to
7
Oligoclonal bands are multiple protein bands serving as markers of specific antibodies
and detected by electrophoresis of cerebrospinal fluid or serum. The bands are most often seen
during inflammatory or immune processes and are found in most patients with multiple sclerosis.
See http://www.online-medical-dictionary.org/definitions-o/oligoclonal-bands.html (last visited
Mar. 30, 2016).
-6-
MTHFR, and that she was doing well on medication. (R. at 447.) Dr. Wright
opined that Mays’s MS was stable. (R. at 447.) On October 30, 2007, an MRI of
Mays’s head showed MS without any new symptoms. (R. at 370.) On August 29,
2008, an MRI of Mays’s brain showed that most of the previous lesions had
improved, but there was a new left frontal white matter lesion and two small
lesions noted at the bilateral brachium pontis. (R. at 365.) On November 13, 2008,
an abdominal sonogram showed bilateral kidney stones. (R. at 358-59.) On July
31, 2009, an MRI of Mays’s brain showed white matter lesions involving both
cerebral hemispheres consistent with MS; the left white matter lesion showed
slight progression; the left frontal coronal radiata lesion showed improvement; and
the left frontal periventricular lesion showed interval progression. (R. at 356-57.)
On March 7, 2012, Dr. Wright noted that Mays’s MS was stable. (R. at 695.) Dr.
Wright noted that Mays’s examination was normal. (R. at 694-95.) On July 12,
2012, while Mays reported having headaches once a week, she stated that they did
not affect her activities of daily living. (R. at 685-90.) She stated that her MS
symptoms were mild. (R. at 687.) Examination was normal. (R. at 688.)
On March 15, 2011, Dr. Richard Surrusco, M.D., a state agency physician,
reported that Mays had the residual functional capacity to perform light work. (R.
at 63-65.) He found that Mays had a limited ability to push and/or push with both
her upper and lower extremities. (R. at 63.) Dr. Surrusco opined that Mays could
occasionally climb ramps and stairs, balance, stoop, kneel, crouch and crawl; and
never climb ladders, ropes and scaffolds. (R. at 63-64.) He opined that Mays’s
ability to reach in all directions was limited. (R. at 64.) No visual or
communicative limitations were noted. (R. at 64.) Dr. Surrusco also opined that
Mays could not work around concentrated exposure to extreme cold and heat;
-7-
wetness; humidity; and vibration; and she could not even be moderately exposed to
hazards, including machinery and heights. (R. at 64-65.)
On March 19, 2011, Louis Perrott, Ph.D., a state agency psychologist,
completed a Psychiatric Review Technique form, (“PRTF”), indicating that Mays
suffered from an affective disorder and anxiety-related disorders. (R. at 61-62.) He
found that Mays had mild limitations on her ability to perform her activities of
daily living and to maintain social functioning. (R. at 61.) Perrott found that Mays
had no difficulties in her ability to maintain concentration, persistence or pace. (R.
at 61.) He opined that Mays had not experienced any episodes of decompensation
of extended duration. (R. at 61.)
On June 13, 2011, Mays saw Susan Myers, L.C.S.W., a licensed clinical
social worker, and reported that she was overwhelmed with fatigue and physical
pain in her legs. (R. at 624.) Myers reported that Mays’s mood was depressed; her
affect was anxious; and her orientation and thought process were intact. (R. at
624.) Myers assessed Mays’s then-current Global Assessment of Functioning,
(“GAF”), 8 score at 50. 9 (R. at 624.) On July 22, 2011, Myers reported that Mays’s
mood was depressed; her affect was anxious; her orientation and thought process
were intact; and she had fair judgment and insight. (R. at 623.) Myers reported that
Mays was stable. (R. at 623.) Myers diagnosed panic disorder without agoraphobia
8
The GAF scale ranges from zero to 100 and “[c]onsider[s] psychological, social, and
occupational functioning on a hypothetical continuum of mental health-illness.” DIAGNOSTIC
AND STATISTICAL MANUAL OF MENTAL DISORDERS FOURTH EDITION, (“DSM-IV”), 32
(American Psychiatric Association 1994).
9 A GAF score of 41-50 indicates that the individual has “[s]erious symptoms ... OR any
serious impairment in social, occupational, or school functioning....” DSM-IV at 32.
-8-
and dysthymic disorder. (R at 623.) On August 12, 2011, Mays reported that, “I
don’t ever feel good.” (R. at 622.) Myers reported that Mays’s mood was
depressed; her affect was anxious; her orientation and thought process were intact;
and she had fair judgment and insight. (R. at 622.)
On August 24, 2011, Myers completed a mental assessment, indicating that
Mays had a limited, but satisfactory, ability to maintain personal appearance and to
demonstrate reliability. (R. at 626-28.) She opined that Mays had a seriously
limited ability to follow work rules; to relate to co-workers; to deal with the public;
to use judgment; to interact with supervisors; to maintain attention and
concentration; to understand, remember and carry out simple job instructions; to
behave in an emotionally stable manner; and to relate predictably in social
situations. (R. at 626-27.) Myers found that Mays had no useful ability to deal with
work stresses; to function independently; and to understand, remember and carry
out complex and detailed job instructions. (R. at 626-27.) She opined that Mays
would be absent from work more than two days a month. (R. at 628.)
On July 26, 2011, Dr. Michael Hartman, M.D., a state agency physician,
reported that Mays had the residual functional capacity to perform light work. (R.
at 75-78.) He found that Mays had a limited ability to push and/or pull with both
her upper and lower extremities. (R. at 76.) Dr. Hartman opined that Mays could
occasionally climb ramps and stairs, balance, stoop, kneel, crouch and crawl; and
never climb ladders, ropes and scaffolds. (R. at 76.) He opined that Mays’s ability
to reach in all directions was limited. (R. at 77.) No visual or communicative
limitations were noted. (R. at 77.) Dr. Hartman also opined that Mays could not
work around concentrated exposure to extreme cold and heat; wetness; humidity;
-9-
and vibration; and she could not even be moderately exposed to hazards, including
machinery and heights. (R. at 77-78.)
On August 2, 2011, Howard S. Leizer, Ph.D., a state agency psychologist,
completed a PRTF, indicating that Mays suffered from an affective disorder and
anxiety-related disorders. (R. at 73-74.) He found that Mays had mild limitations
on her ability to perform her activities of daily living and to maintain social
functioning. (R. at 74.) Leizer found that Mays had no difficulties in her ability to
maintain concentration, persistence or pace. (R. at 74.) He opined that Mays had
not experienced any episodes of decompensation of extended duration. (R. at 74.)
On September 23, 2011, Robert S. Spangler, Ed.D., a licensed psychologist,
evaluated Mays at the request of Mays’s attorney. (R. at 630-36.) Spangler
reported that Mays had awkward gross motor movements and a slow, stiff gait. (R.
at 630.) He reported that Mays had age-appropriate fine motor movements, but
noted that she was slow. (R. at 630.) Mays demonstrated good concentration while
on prescription medication, and she was appropriately persistent on tasks. (R. at
630.) Mays’s pace was impacted due to the need to shift in her seat. (R. at 630.)
She had adequate recall of most remote and recent events. (R. at 631.) Her motor
activity was tense; her affect was congruent; her mood was depressed and anxious;
her stream of thought was unremarkable; associations were logical; her thought
content was nonpsychotic; and her social skills were adequate. (R. at 631-32.) The
Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale - Fourth Edition, (“WAIS-IV”), was
administered, and Mays obtained a full-scale IQ score of 85. (R. at 632.) Spangler
diagnosed dysthymic disorder, chronic, early onset, moderate; generalized anxiety
disorder, moderate to severe; and obsessive compulsive disorder, mild. (R. at 633.)
-10-
He assessed Mays’s then-current GAF score at 50 to 55.10 (R. at 633.)
Spangler completed a mental assessment, indicating that Mays had a limited,
but satisfactory, ability to follow work rules; to use judgment; to interact with
supervisors; and to maintain attention and concentration, while on medication. (R.
at 634-36.) He opined that Mays had a seriously limited ability to relate to coworkers; to deal with the public; to function independently; to understand,
remember and carry out simple and detailed job instructions; to maintain personal
appearance; to behave in an emotionally stable manner; and to relate predictably in
social situations. (R. at 634-35.) Spangler opined that Mays had no useful ability to
deal with work stresses; to understand, remember and carry out complex job
instructions; and to demonstrate reliability. (R. at 634-35.) He reported that Mays
would be absent from work more than three days a month. (R. at 636.)
On August 18, 2012, Dr. Victoria Grady, M.D., examined Mays at the
request of Disability Determination Services. (R. at 673-83.) Mays had a normal
gait and motor strength in both the upper and lower extremities. (R. at 675.)
Examination was normal with the exception of limited range of motion in the
thoracolumbar spine and hip flexion. (R. at 677.) Dr. Grady diagnosed MS with
fatigue; depression and anxiety; and MTHFR mutation. (R. at 676.)
Dr. Grady completed a medical assessment, indicating that Mays could
occasionally lift and carry items weighing up to 50 pounds and frequently lift and
carry items weighing up to 20 pounds. (R. at 678-83.) She found that Mays could
10
A GAF score of 51-60 indicates that the individual has “[m]oderate symptoms … OR
moderate difficulty in social, occupational, or school functioning….” DSM-IV at 32.
-11-
sit, stand and walk a total of eight hours a day and that she could do so for up to
two hours without interruption. (R. at 679.) Dr. Grady opined that Mays could
frequently reach; handle; finger; feel; push/pull; and operate foot controls. (R. at
680.) In addition, Dr. Grady found that Mays could frequently climb stairs, ramps,
ladders and scaffolds; balance; stoop; kneel; crouch; and crawl. (R. at 681.) She
opined that Mays could frequently work around moving machinery; operate a
motor vehicle; work around humidity; wetness; and vibrations; and never work
around unprotected heights, dust, odors, fumes, pulmonary irritants and extreme
heat and cold. (R. at 682.) Dr. Grady reported that there would be days that Mays’s
examination would differ based on her symptoms for that day, including symptoms
of fatigue and muscle weakness. (R. at 683.) She opined that Mays should not
attempt work in a high-stress environment. (R. at 683.)
III. Analysis
The Commissioner uses a five-step process in evaluating DIB claims. See 20
C.F.R. § 404.1520 (2015); see also Heckler v. Campbell, 461 U.S. 458, 460-62
(1983); Hall v. Harris, 658 F.2d 260, 264-65 (4th Cir. 1981). This process requires
the Commissioner to consider, in order, whether a claimant 1) is working; 2) has a
severe impairment; 3) has an impairment that meets or equals the requirements of a
listed impairment; 4) can return to her past relevant work; and 5) if not, whether
she can perform other work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. If the Commissioner finds
conclusively that a claimant is or is not disabled at any point in this process, review
does not proceed to the next step. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a) (2015).
As stated above, the court’s function in this case is limited to determining
-12-
whether substantial evidence exists in the record to support the ALJ’s findings.
The court must not weigh the evidence, as this court lacks authority to substitute its
judgment for that of the Commissioner, provided her decision is supported by
substantial evidence. See Hays, 907 F.2d at 1456. In determining whether
substantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s decision, the court also must
consider whether the ALJ analyzed all of the relevant evidence and whether the
ALJ sufficiently explained his findings and his rationale in crediting evidence. See
Sterling Smokeless Coal Co. v. Akers, 131 F.3d 438, 439-40 (4th Cir. 1997).
Mays argues that the ALJ erred by improperly determining her residual
functional capacity. (Plaintiff’s Memorandum In Support Of Her Motion For
Summary Judgment, (“Plaintiff’s Brief”), at 5-7.) Mays further argues that the ALJ
erred by failing to give appropriate credence to her testimony and to properly
assess the effect of pain on her ability to perform substantial gainful activity. (R. at
7-8.)
The ALJ found that Mays had the residual functional capacity to perform
light work that did not require more than occasional climbing of ramps and stairs,
balancing, stooping, kneeling, crouching, crawling and reaching; that did not
require climbing ladders, ropes or scaffolds, concentrated exposure to cold, heat,
wetness, humidity and vibration; that did not require even moderate exposure to
work hazards, fumes, odors, dusts and gases; and that required only one- to twostep job instructions. (R. at 18.) Based on my review of the record, I do not find
that substantial evidence exists to support the ALJ’s finding with regard to Mays’s
residual functional capacity.
-13-
The ALJ found that Mays would be limited to the performance of no more
than one- to two-step job instructions. (R. at 18.) The ALJ noted that he was giving
“some weight” to the opinion of Dr. Grady and “little weight” to Myers’s and
Spangler’s opinions. (R. at 21.) Dr. Grady noted that Mays should not attempt to
work in a high-stress environment. (R. at 683.) This finding is consistent with the
opinions of Myers and Spangler, who also found that Mays had no useful ability to
deal with work stresses. (R. at 626, 634.) These mental health providers, however,
placed many more restrictions on Mays’s mental work-related abilities. (R. at 62627, 634-35.)
It is the ALJ’s responsibility to weigh the evidence, including the medical
evidence, in order to resolve any conflicts which might appear therein. See Hays,
907 F.2d at 1456; Taylor v. Weinberger, 528 F.2d 1153, 1156 (4th Cir. 1975).
Furthermore, while an ALJ may not reject medical evidence for no reason or for
the wrong reason, see King v. Califano, 615 F.2d 1018, 1020 (4th Cir. 1980), an
ALJ may, under the regulations, assign no or little weight to a medical opinion,
even one from a treating source, based on the factors set forth at 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.1527(c), if he sufficiently explains his rationale and if the record supports his
findings.
The ALJ noted that he was giving Myers’s opinion “little” weight because
she was not an acceptable medical source within the meaning of the regulations.
(R. at 21.) The ALJ further noted that Myers’s treatment notes did not support the
severity of the limitations in her opinion. (R. at 21.) While this analysis is sparse, it
is an explanation of the weight the ALJ gave this opinion. The ALJ also noted that
-14-
he was giving Spangler’s opinion “little” weight. (R. at 21.) The ALJ further found
that Spangler was an acceptable medical source within the meaning of the
regulations. (R. at 21-22.) While the ALJ recounts Spangler’s opinion on Mays’s
work-related mental limitations, he failed to provide any reason for rejecting it.
The ALJ found that Mays suffered from the severe impairments of depression and
anxiety. Therefore, the ALJ found that these impairments had a significant impact
on Mays’s work-related mental abilities. With the rejection of Myers’s and
Spangler’s opinions, the ALJ had no opinion from a mental health expert regarding
Mays’s work-related abilities before him since neither of the state agency
psychologists completed an assessment of Mays’s work-related abilities. Based on
this, I do not find that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s weighing of the
medical evidence or the ALJ’s finding with regard to Mays’s residual functional
capacity.
Based on the above reasoning, I further find that substantial evidence does
not exist in the record to support the ALJ’s finding that Mays was not disabled. An
appropriate Order and Judgment will be entered.
ENTERED: March 31, 2016.
s/
Pamela Meade Sargent
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
-15-
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?