MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

BROOKE C. WELLS, Magistrate Judge.

The case is before the undersigned pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73 and the parties' consent.1, 2 Claimant Kelly Peck (Mr. Peck) appeals from a decision denying his application for Disability and Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI). On appeal Mr. Peck raises three challenges to the administrative law judge's decision. First, the ALJ's erred in the evaluation of the medical opinion evidence regarding his impairments. Second, the ALJ failed to account for all his established impairments. And third, Plaintiff takes issue with the ALJ's analysis at step 5 of the sequential evaluation process. After reviewing the parties' briefing, the ALJ's decision, the record of proceedings in this case and relevant case law, the undersigned finds error in the ALJ's decision and therefore remands this case for further consideration.

BACKGROUND3

Mr. Peck applied for Disability, DIB and SSI on February 1, 2013, alleging disability beginning March 1, 2012.4 Mr. Peck alleges disability due to mental and physical impairments. These include short term memory loss, back pain, fatigue, traumatic brain injury, depression, chronic fatigue, a learning disability and borderline IQ.5 A horse kicked Mr. Peck in the head when he was three leading to severe head trauma and some brain damage.6 Many of Mr. Peck's ailments stem from that injury and the ALJ found this injury to be a severe impairment.7

After hearing all the evidence the ALJ issued a decision following the familiar five-step sequential evaluation process used to assess social security claims.8 The ALJ determined Mr. Peck was not disabled at step five of the evaluation process finding other light unskilled jobs that Mr. Peck could perform. These jobs included work such as a fund raiser, a survey worker and an information clerk.9

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Because the Appeals Council denied the claimant's requested review the ALJ's decision is considered the Commissioner's final decision for purposes of this appeal.10 The court reviews the ALJ's decision to determine whether the correct legal standards were applied and whether the factual findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record.11 "Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion."12 "A decision is not based on substantial evidence if it is overwhelmed by other evidence in the record or if there is a mere scintilla of evidence supporting it."13 In considering claimant's appeal the court may "neither reweigh the evidence nor substitute [its] judgment for that of the agency."14

DISCUSSION

On appeal, Mr. Peck first contends the ALJ failed to properly evaluate the medical opinion evidence. Plaintiff contends the opinions of Dr. Sam Goldstein, Dr. Ralph Grant and Dr. Darin Featherstone were not properly evaluated. The court agrees that the ALJ failed to give good reasons for the weight it assigned to some of the medical opinions.

(i) Treating Physician Rule

Under what is generally known as the treating physician rule, the Commissioner will usually give more weight to medical opinions from treating sources than those from non-treating sources.15 "In deciding how much weight to give a treating source opinion, an ALJ must first determine whether the opinion qualifies for `controlling weight.'"16 To make this determination, the ALJ:

However, even when a treating physician's opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, treating source medical opinions are still entitled to deference and must be weighed using the factors provided for in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 and § 416.927.18 These factors are:

"Under the regulations, the agency rulings, and our case law, an ALJ must give good reasons . . . for the weight assigned to a treating physician's opinion," that are "sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the treating source's medical opinion and the reason for that weight."20 If an ALJ "rejects the opinion completely, he must then give specific, legitimate reasons for doing so."21

Here the ALJ stated:

The Government argues "the ALJ's weighing of the opinions is sufficiently specific when reading his decision as a whole."23 The court disagrees. Even when considering the opinion as a whole, the court finds the ALJ did not provide "sufficiently specific" reasons for the weight given to Dr. Kockler and Dr. Gant. "[T]he notice of determination or decision must contain specific reasons for the weight given to the treating source's medical opinion, . . ., and must be sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the treating source's medical opinion and the reasons for that weight."24 The lack of specificity behind "given weight" and what weight the ALJ intended leads this court to remand. The court "cannot meaningfully review the ALJ's determination absent findings explaining the weight assigned" to these physicians.25

The problems in the ALJ's analysis of certain medical opinions also lend support to Mr. Peck's other arguments: the ALJ failed to account for all of his established impairments; and the ALJ erred at step 5 of the sequential evaluation process. But, the court finds it unnecessary to address these arguments. On remand these issues are likely to be addressed once a proper medical opinion evaluation takes place.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Because the Commissioner did not apply the correct legal standards and her findings are not supported by substantial evidence in the record, the court must remand this case for further proceedings.

Accordingly, the Commissioner's decision is hereby remanded for further proceedings consistent with this order.