Davis v. Social Security Administration, No. 6:2014cv00168 - Document 21 (E.D. Okla. 2014)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Steven P. Shreder granting 20 Motion to Remand. (ndd, Deputy Clerk)

Download PDF
Davis v. Social Security Administration Doc. 21 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA TAMMY SUE DAVIS, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CIV-14-168-SPS OPINION AND ORDER The claimant Tammy S. Davis sought judicial review of the decision by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“Commissioner”) denying benefits pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The claimant argued that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred by omitting severe impairments at step two, improperly assessing her physical and mental RFC at step four, and improperly determining there was work she could perform at step five. After the claimant filed her appellate brief, the Commissioner moved to remand the case to the ALJ for rehearing in order to reevaluate the claimant’s ability to perform work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy, consulting a vocational expert as appropriate. The claimant does not object to the Commissioner’s Motion to Remand [Docket No. 20]. The Commissioner’s motion is therefore GRANTED. Accordingly, the Court finds that the decision of the Commissioner is unsupported by substantial evidence and is therefore REVERSED pursuant to the fourth sentence of Dockets.Justia.com 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The case is hereby REMANDED to the ALJ for rehearing and a new administrative decision that properly assesses the claimant’s RFC and ability to perform work, and such other evidence as the Commissioner finds appropriate. The claimant is the prevailing party in this action and the Court will therefore render a separate judgment in her favor pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(b)(2)(B). DATED this 21st day of November, 2014.

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.