HOLLAND v. ASTRUE, No. 3:2013cv00013 - Document 27 (S.D. Ind. 2013)
Court Description: FINAL JUDGMENT - The decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED under Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and REMANDED to the Commissioner for further proceedings. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr., on 10/2/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Transcript of Findings)(NRN)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
HOLLAND v. ASTRUE Doc. 27 Att. 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 THE COURT: I'm going to make the following findings which will be incorporated into the order on this case: Finding 1: The key issue in this case is whether Thomas meets listing 112.02. Finding 2: The critical issue in this case is 6 whether in one of the six domains -- that domain is 7 interacting and relating to others -- the ALJ erred in finding 8 him marked when he should have found Thomas extreme. 9 Finding 3: Thomas might also meet listing 11.02 if 10 he is found to have marked impairment in two of the domains, 11 and I find that two of the other domains, acquiring and using 12 information and attending and completing tasks, are areas 13 where the ALJ found less than marked conditions with respect 14 to Thomas. 15 Finding 4: In reviewing the ALJ's opinion -- and I 16 am looking specifically at pages 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27 of 17 the record -- the ALJ specifically discusses various exhibits, 18 but he does not explicitly discuss Exhibits 7, 12 or 14. 19 20 21 Finding 5: Exhibits 7 and 14 are Southwestern Indiana Mental Health notes. Finding 6: These notes are from a physician, three 22 licensed social workers and a case manager, and they're found 23 at the record at 271 to 275, 333 to 335, 352 to 353, 441, 469 24 and 530 and 532. 25 address these treatment records from Southwestern Mental The ALJ's opinion does not explicitly Judy Farris Mason, CSR Dockets.Justia.com 2 1 Health in 14 and 7. 2 that the ALJ must evaluate and assign some level of weight to 3 the opinions from acceptable medical sources. 4 20 CFR 404.1527(a) through (c). 5 is an acceptable medical source, and I believe licensed 6 clinical social workers would be another source, "other 7 source" as defined at 404.1513(d), and that the case manager 8 would be a non-medical source; but a "non-medical source" 9 under SSR 06-03p must be evaluated. 10 Finding In looking at the regulations, I believe 7: That's There is a physician here who In this case the records not reviewed 11 from Exhibits 7 and 14 are not short-term or infrequent 12 records but are a true longitudinal picture of Thomas through 13 an extensive period of time by a number of different people. 14 Finding 8: Some of the treatment notes are material 15 to the ultimate decisions about whether interacting should go 16 from marked to extreme or whether acquiring or using 17 information or attending and completing tasks should be less 18 than marked or marked. 19 notes from Dr. Alley at the record at 274 and 275 that 20 describe violent behaviors and attitudes. 21 records from Brenda Meyer, the licensed clinical social 22 worker, at 333 to 335 that evaluate the plaintiff as unable or 23 unwilling to complete tasks, follow instructions or pay 24 attention. 25 following directions, difficulty getting along with others, Specifically, there are some treatment There are some There are other issues concerning his difficulty Judy Farris Mason, CSR 3 1 limited social skills. 2 Durham at page 352 which indicates consistent absence and 3 tardiness from school. 4 Tracey Kelley at 353 that indicated the plaintiff has been 5 refusing to attend school. 6 case from Tina Evans Robinson, M.D., and Tracey Kelley that 7 suggest that his diagnosis has a GF of 49 and describes 8 Thomas' history that his performance has been below ability. 9 Finding 9: There's a progress note from Kate There are some progress notes from There are also records in that It's my conclusion that because these 10 are extensive records and that they are material to the very 11 close call the ALJ was faced with, that the ALJ's failure to 12 discuss those records leaves me unable to trace the path of 13 his reasoning or to be sure that he has not ignored this 14 entire line of evidence which includes the number of people 15 assessing him and the length of time Thomas was assessed, so I 16 think he has failed to deal with that, and that issue requires 17 a remand, which I would believe as under sentence four. 18 Finding 10: On the issue of whether there is new 19 and material evidence, I noticed that the material submitted 20 that may be new material includes an arrest record of the 21 plaintiff that indicates he was issued a notice to appear in 22 Juvenile Court on October 24th, 2011, two weeks following the 23 hearing and four weeks before the issuance of the decision, 24 and I also find that the IEP was dated October 10th, 2011, the 25 day before the ALJ's hearing. While that may technically be Judy Farris Mason, CSR 4 1 in existence, it's not certain that that was in existence in a 2 form that could have been presented to the ALJ in that regard. 3 Finding 11: The issue of whether a sentence six 4 request has been waived in this case is a close call. 5 recognize what Eads has to say. 6 though, does suggest that remand can be allowed, and my sense 7 in reading the issues about failing to raise an issue in the 8 first brief, the courts are concerned that much like the 9 Chenery doctrine. I do I do find that Farrell, Plaintiffs not be able to raise issues 10 clearly outside the evidence here. 11 issue of whether a remand was required here because Thomas' 12 condition was before the court and the language that the 13 appeals counsel used and is before the court at record two is 14 ambiguous as to whether they truly considered the evidence 15 before them and evaluated it as to whether it was new and 16 material or whether they did not do so, I cannot tell from 17 that language whether they did or did not do that. 18 Finding 12: But on the other hand, the In light of the fact that a sentence 19 four remand is required in this case because of the need to 20 evaluate the records here, I'm going to also issue an order 21 that in the event the Eads doctrine would purportedly prohibit 22 the court from doing this, that under Farrell there is new and 23 material evidence presented to this court. 24 the dates that I describe are contemporaneous or after the 25 hearing before the ALJ and material in that one of the key Judy Farris Mason, CSR It is new because 5 1 findings of the ALJ in this case was that the plaintiff had 2 never been subjected to an IEP and he now was, and he was very 3 close in time -- in fact, perhaps the day of the hearing -- so 4 it could impact his decision as to whether an IEP was prepared 5 for the child on the date of the hearing. 6 call into question whether his interacting and relating to 7 others because of yet another arrest or threat should be moved 8 from the marked to the extreme level that would allow a 9 finding at that point in time. And the arrest does So I do find that the evidence 10 is new and material and would remand this case both on the 11 basis of sentence four and sentence six. 12 It's a really close call. I am very mindful of how 13 hard a job ALJs have, how many cases they have, how difficult 14 it is, and the ALJ's opinion in this case was certainly not a 15 poor effort; it was a good effort, but it was an good effort 16 at a very close call. 17 evidence over that long a period of time from that many people 18 who are dealing with critical issues such as attending and 19 completing tasks and interacting with others, not explicitly 20 mentioning that or telling me that, requires a remand for an 21 explanation. 22 that changes his or her mind remains to be determined. 23 24 I simply think when there is that much Whether the ALJ will come to the conclusion that So for those reasons I'm going to order both a sentence four and sentence six remand. 25 Judy Farris Mason, CSR
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
