Ham v. Social Security Administration Commissioner, No. 2:2017cv02048 - Document 20 (W.D. Ark. 2018)
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 26, 2018. (lw)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Ham v. Social Security Administration Commissioner Doc. 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FORT SMITH DIVISION KIMBERLY HAM V. PLAINTIFF CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-cv-2048-MEF NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting 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 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 the parties having waived oral argument, finds as follows, to-wit: 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 does not find substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s RFC determination in this case. Accordingly, on remand, the ALJ is directed to reconsider the Plaintiff’s ability to reach overhead bilaterally. Additionally, the ALJ is ordered to recall the vocational expert and question him regarding the availability of work for individuals with only 10 degrees of flexion and extension in the neck and a limited ability to reach overhead bilaterally. IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED on this the 26th day of March, 2018. /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.
