Martin v. Social Security Administration Commissioner, No. 2:2023cv02012 - Document 23 (W.D. Ark. 2024)
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 March 25, 2024. (jlm)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Martin v. Social Security Administration Commissioner Doc. 23 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FORT SMITH DIVISION AMANDA MARTIN V. PLAINTIFF Civil No. 2:23-cv-02012-MEF MARTIN O’MALLEY, 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 her application 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 the parties having waived oral argument, finds as follows: 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). The Court finds that the ALJ’s RFC determination is not supported by substantial evidence. Plaintiff has a history of interstitial cystitis resulting in chronic symptoms, to include urinary frequency and retention, pain, and leakage. Despite the medication, Axonics, regular bladder instillation treatments, and self-catheterization prescribed by her urologist, the Plaintiff has continued to experience urinary frequency, occurring every 15 to 30 minutes, discomfort, and leakage. The ALJ did not, however, account for these symptoms in the RFC. Accordingly, remand Dockets.Justia.com is necessary to allow him to obtain an RFC assessment from Plaintiff’s treating urologist. Should her urologist be unwilling or otherwise unable to complete an RFC assessment, the ALJ should order a consultative physical exam complete with an RFC discussing the impact her urinary impairment has on her ability to perform work-related tasks day in and day out, in the sometimes competitive and stressful conditions in which real people work in the real world. IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED on this 25th day of March 2024. /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.
