Ham v. Berryhill, 2:17-cv-2048-MEF. (2018)
Court: District Court, W.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20180327b61
Visitors: 17
Filed: Mar. 26, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2018
Summary: FINAL JUDGMENT MARK E. FORD , Magistrate Judge . This cause is before the Court on the Plaintiff's complaint for judicial review of an unfavorable final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denying her claim for disability benefits. 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). The Court, having reviewed the administrative record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable
Summary: FINAL JUDGMENT MARK E. FORD , Magistrate Judge . This cause is before the Court on the Plaintiff's complaint for judicial review of an unfavorable final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denying her claim for disability benefits. 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). The Court, having reviewed the administrative record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable ..
More
FINAL JUDGMENT
MARK E. FORD, Magistrate Judge.
This cause is before the Court on the Plaintiff's complaint for judicial review of an unfavorable final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denying her claim for disability benefits. 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). The Court, having reviewed the administrative record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the parties having waived oral argument, finds as follows, to-wit:
Consistent with the Court's ruling from the bench, the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is reversed and remanded for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
The Court does not find substantial evidence to support the ALJ's RFC determination in this case. Accordingly, on remand, the ALJ is directed to reconsider the Plaintiff's ability to reach overhead bilaterally. Additionally, the ALJ is ordered to recall the vocational expert and question him regarding the availability of work for individuals with only 10 degrees of flexion and extension in the neck and a limited ability to reach overhead bilaterally.
IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED.
Source: Leagle
