McCartney v. Social Security Administration Commissioner, No. 2:2018cv02102 - Document 19 (W.D. Ark. 2019)

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 July 22, 2019. (mjm)

Download PDF
McCartney v. Social Security Administration Commissioner Doc. 19 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FORT SMITH DIVISION DUSTIN McCARTNEY PLAINTIFF V. CIVIL NO. 2:18-cv-02102-MEF ANDREW M. SAUL, 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 claims for disability benefits (“DIB”) and supplement income benefits (“SSI”). 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 oral argument having been waived, finds as follows: Substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s decision in this case. Consistent with the Court’s ruling from the bench, 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 reconsider her step five analysis. The ALJ should take care to determine whether any jobs identified by a vocational expert are consistent with the Plaintiff’s physical and mental RFC limitations, the vocational information, and the DOT and/or SCO, and any apparent conflicts must be explained. IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED on this 22nd day of July 2019. /s/ Mark E. Ford HON. MARK E. FORD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.