Williams v. Astrue, No. 2:2012cv00049 - Document 19 (N.D. Miss. 2012)

Court Description: FINAL JUDGMENT in favor of George Williams against Michael J. Astrue. The case is REMANDED to the Commisisoner for further proceedings. CASE CLOSED. Signed by Jane M Virden on 8/27/12. (ncb)

Download PDF
Williams v. Astrue Doc. 19 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI DELTA DIVISION GEORGE WILLIAMS PLAINTIFF VS. CAUSE NO. 2:12CV00049-JMV MICHAEL J. ASTRUE COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY DEFENDANT FINAL JUDGMENT Pursuant to a hearing held before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge, the court has determined that this case should be remanded to the Commissioner of Social Security for additional proceedings. The court finds that the ALJ’s step five determination that the claimant “is capable of making a successful adjustment to other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy” is not supported by substantial evidence in the record because the vocational expert (“VE”) testimony upon which the ALJ relied was based upon a flawed hypothetical. Specifically, the relevant hypothetical proffered to the VE during the hearing included a residual functional capacity (“RFC”) that was less limited with regard to the claimant’s ability to push and pull with the right upper and left lower extremities1 than the RFC found by the ALJ and recited in his decision2. Therefore, this case shall be remanded to the Commissioner with 1 The ALJ stated the hypothetical individual could “push and pull 20 pounds, but less than 10 with the left upper extremity and the right lower extremity.” 2 The ALJ’s decision recites: “The claimant can push/pull 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently. However, the claimant is limited to pushing/pulling only 10 pounds with the left upper extremity Dockets.Justia.com instructions to refer the matter to an ALJ for reconsideration. The ALJ may conduct additional proceedings including, but not limited to, recontacting the vocational expert or obtaining new vocational expert testimony on the issue of whether there are other jobs the claimant can perform considering his RFC and other relevant factors. The parties, having consented to entry of final judgment by the United States Magistrate Judge under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), with any appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this case is REVERSED AND REMANDED to the Commissioner for further proceedings as set out above. THIS 27th day of August, 2012. /s/ Jane M. Virden U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE and right lower extremity.” 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.