Sullivan v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration, No. 6:2009cv00904 - Document 20 (D. Or. 2010)
Court Description: Opinion and Order: The ALJ's finding that plaintiff is not disabled under the Act is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Accordingly, the decision of the Commissioner is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Signed on 11/12/10 by Chief Judge Ann L. Aiken. (lae)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
---------- Sullivan v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration Doc. 20 ""J EIt"1t1 ~JniJ "I c tiCi :::'4'PF;Tn-o.pOt ~ _,_I '_' ~!.... iJ_JJ'_' _If:. i="Ii ,- '_' _! t_" • IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON Civ. No. 09-904-AA HARRY J. SULLIVAN, OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant. AIKEN, Chief Judge: Plaintiff seeks Commissioner's final judicial decision disability insurance benefits Security Act U.S'.C. § (the Act). 405 (g). review denying (DIB) This of the his Social Security application for under Title II of the Social court has jurisdiction under 42 The decision of the Commissioner is reversed and remanded for further administrative proceedings. DISCUSSION On August 21, 2001, plaintiff applied for DIB. Plaintiff's 1 application was denied Tr. 19, 90-92. initially and on - OPINION AND ORDER Dockets.Justia.com recons ration, testifi 60, and on Ma 2, before an administrat 1799-1835. On i1 finding intiff not di 957-63. 30 , On May 11, 2007, 2004 pIa iff law judge (ALJ). 2 004, the AL J appeared and Tr. 50-52, 57 is a decision within the meaning of the Act. Tr. ed review and Appeals Council the case to the ALJ with specific instructions to resolve issues pI involving the seve of plaintiff's iff's symptoms and residual functional and lity, rments. cal Tr. 971-75. dur 19, 2007, the ALJ iss s decision, the ALJ plaintiff's rt to clarify t Tr. 19 Tr. 974. second hearing, Tr. 1836-54. cis ion finding Act. 's Is Court ordered the ALJ conducted a in testified. the meaning of to claimant's impairments[.]" 2007, which plaintiff 8. On December aintiff not disabl However, in rea not obtain the opinion or testimony of a cal expert the nature tations during relevant from a medical nature and severity of t On November 29, evidence impairments, city, plainti In particular, ALJ to "obtain I ty relevant the per iff's severity of at issue. In fail to do so, the ALJ e Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.977, a case to an ALJ "so that he or the Appeals Council may may hold a rand issue a decision or a recommended decision," to obtain" tional evidence" when i 2 or to take "additi - OPINION AND ORDER action" as rd. 404.977(a). § action t t additional Once a case is is ordered by the action that by 0 discretiona by the not Id. § the 404.977 (b) remand s explained in i are not § 404.977 cal expert to clari n The Commissioner Is Council's a to Commissioner. the ALJ's Regardless, ALJ complied with iona"l 's impairments and nature and severity Tr. 974. with t ALJ the ALJ to "obta t direct his on is case, the Appeals Council remanded the case to t 's impairments. 1 als (emphasis added). specifically cla the (emphasis added) . 1 als Council, the capa from a with 404.983 (IIIf the case is § r consideration of for is istent Appeals See 20 C.F.R. be followed. ") In Is Council and may ta is Council's remand order." actions , the ALJ "shall take any ALJ failed to the llow this s that the ALJ did comply argues that the court's is the final decision ew of the issue before the court is whether 1 relevant legal standards and supported ision with substantial evidence in the reco See Batson 359 F.3d1190, 1193 (9th Cir. ·2004) . The ALJ's compliance with the Appeals is relevant to this t ALJ did not adhere to t il 3 to develop the - OPINION AND ORDER termination. Ult l's order on ely, I find that relevant regulatory re as instructed by rementsand als Council. Therefore, upheld. ssioner's decision cannot The Commissioner also maintains or seeking calling a medical expert r information from an not have altered ALJ's final decis is inappropriate r this court to rna ing physician wou further However, such a ng Accordingly, remand for s is required to opinion of a expert as to the nature and severity of pI of December 31, 1992, his date last insured. ntiff's impairments as I decline to ss plaintiff's remaining assignments of error, given that additional medical opinion could alter , i and For disab uding his determinat se reasons, Accordingly, REVERSED REMANDED for ,~~y OPINION AND ORDER in the decision of the Commissioner is r proceedings consistent with November, 2010. Ann Aiken United States District Judge 4 is not ed by substantial IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this two of credibility. the ALJ's finding that plainti under the Act is not s the ALJ's findings at st s
]]>
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.
