VanDusen v. Social Security Administration, No. 4:2019cv00566 - Document 20 (E.D. Ark. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER approving and adopting 19 findings and recommendations in all respects; and reversing and remanding the Commissioner's decision for action consistent with this opinion. Signed by Judge Lee P. Rudofsky on 09/23/2020. (ajt)

Download PDF
VanDusen v. Social Security Administration Doc. 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION JIMI D. VANDUSEN v. PLAINTIFF Case No. 4:19-cv-00566 LPR-JTK ANDREW SAUL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION DEFENDANT ORDER The Court has received proposed findings and recommendations (Doc. 19) from United States Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney. No objections have been filed and the time for doing so has passed. After review of the findings and recommendations, as well as a de novo review of the record, the Court approves and adopts the findings and recommendations in all respects. For the reasons stated in the findings and recommendation, the Court finds that the ALJ’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence. The record was not properly developed and the RFC did not fully incorporate Plaintiff’s limitations. Accordingly, the Commissioner’s decision is REVERSED and REMANDED for action consistent with this opinion. This is a “sentence four” remand within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89 (1991).1 IT IS SO ORDERED this 23rd day of September 2020. ________________________________ LEE P. RUDOFSKY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1 By using the term “reversed,” the Court is not suggesting that Plaintiff is entitled to a disability finding in his favor. The Court is simply saying that the Commissioner’s decision is lacking. Upon remand, and after addressing the problems identified by the Court, the Commissioner may conclude that Plaintiff is still not disabled. However, the Commissioner may also conclude the opposite. The Court is not prejudging that question. Dockets.Justia.com

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.