McCartney v. Saul, 2:18-cv-02102-MEF. (2019)
Court: District Court, W.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20190723927
Visitors: 11
Filed: Jul. 22, 2019
Latest Update: Jul. 22, 2019
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 his claims for disability benefits ("DIB") and supplement income benefits ("SSI"). 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 r
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 his claims for disability benefits ("DIB") and supplement income benefits ("SSI"). 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 re..
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 his claims for disability benefits ("DIB") and supplement income benefits ("SSI"). 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 oral argument having been waived, finds as follows:
Substantial evidence does not support the ALJ's decision in this case. 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).
On remand, the ALJ is directed to reconsider her step five analysis. The ALJ should take care to determine whether any jobs identified by a vocational expert are consistent with the Plaintiff's physical and mental RFC limitations, the vocational information, and the DOT and/or SCO, and any apparent conflicts must be explained.
IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED.
Source: Leagle
