Wooten v. Commissioner of Social Security, 3:17-CV-78-RP. (2018)
Court: District Court, N.D. Mississippi
Number: infdco20180302c35
Visitors: 3
Filed: Mar. 01, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2018
Summary: FINAL JUDGMENT ROY PERCY , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff Sylvester Wooten filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 405(g) for judicial review of the unfavorable decision of the Commissioner of Social Security regarding an application for a period of disability, disability insurance benefits, and supplemental security income. The parties have consented to entry of final judgment by the United States Magistrate Judge under the provision of 28 U.S.C. 636(c), with any appeal to the Court of Appeals for t
Summary: FINAL JUDGMENT ROY PERCY , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff Sylvester Wooten filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 405(g) for judicial review of the unfavorable decision of the Commissioner of Social Security regarding an application for a period of disability, disability insurance benefits, and supplemental security income. The parties have consented to entry of final judgment by the United States Magistrate Judge under the provision of 28 U.S.C. 636(c), with any appeal to the Court of Appeals for th..
More
FINAL JUDGMENT
ROY PERCY, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Sylvester Wooten filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for judicial review of the unfavorable decision of the Commissioner of Social Security regarding an application for a period of disability, disability insurance benefits, and supplemental security income. The parties have consented to entry of final judgment by the United States Magistrate Judge under the provision of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), with any appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Docket 11. The Court, having considered the record, the administrative transcript, the briefs of the parties, the oral arguments of counsel and the applicable law, and as explained further from the bench at the conclusion of the hearing hereon, finds as follows:
The Commissioner's decision that Plaintiff does not have a severe impairment or combination of impairments is not supported by substantial evidence. Despite the absence of competing, firsthand medical evidence from a treating or examining physician, the ALJ failed to conduct a proper analysis of Dr. Jorge Leal's opinions under Newton v. Apfel, 209 F.3d 448 (5th Cir. 2000) and 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). The Court finds this to be reversible error and reverses and remands the ALJ's decision for a de novo review of Plaintiff's application.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED.
Source: Leagle
