Cass v. Social Security Administration Commissioner, No. 2:2015cv02255 - Document 15 (W.D. Ark. 2016)

Court Description: FINAL JUDGMENT REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER AND REMANDING THIS CASE TO THE COMMISSIONER FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION PURSUANT TO SENTENCE FOUR of 42 U.S.C. 405(g). Signed by Honorable Mark E. Ford on December 1, 2016. (hnc)

Download PDF
Cass v. Social Security Administration Commissioner Doc. 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FORT SMITH DIVISION ASHLEY DESHAWN CASS V. PLAINTIFF CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-cv-2255-MEF CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner, Social Security Administration DEFENDANT FINAL JUDGMENT This cause is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s complaint for judicial review of an unfavorable final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denying his claim for disability benefits. The parties have consented to entry of final judgment by the United States Magistrate Judge under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The Court, having reviewed the administrative record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and having heard oral argument, finds as follows, to-wit: Consistent with the Court’s ruling from the bench following the parties’ oral argument, the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is reversed and remanded for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). On remand, the ALJ is directed to at least attempt to obtain the treatment records from Dr. Ralph Richter that were unavailable, due to the classified nature of the ongoing drug study, during the relevant time period. In addition, the ALJ is ordered to obtain any and all records from Plaintiff’s treating physicians dated after the ALJ’s decision. Further, because the record does not contain the assessment of a specialist, on remand, the ALJ must order a consultative neurological examination, complete with an RFC assessment, to Dockets.Justia.com develop the record regarding the Plaintiff’s work-related limitations. This information should then be used to formulate appropriate hypothetical questions to the vocational expert to ascertain whether Plaintiff can perform her past relevant work and, if not, whether she can perform work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy. IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED on this the 1st day of December, 2016. /s/ Mark E. Ford HON. MARK E. FORD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2

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.