Blanchard v. Social Security Administration

E.D. Arkansas

Blanchard v. Social Security Administration

DecidedJanuary 14, 2020

Docket4:19-cv-00068

StatusUnknown

This text of Blanchard v. Social Security Administration (Blanchard v. Social Security Administration) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Blanchard v. Social Security Administration, (E.D. Ark. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION

CASSANDRA DENISE BLANCHARD PLAINTIFF

v. Case No. 4:19-cv-00068-LPR

ANDREW SAUL, DEFENDANT Commissioner of Social Security Administration

ORDER The Court received and reviewed the Recommended Disposition (“Recommendation”) filed by Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray. (Doc. 14). The parties have not filed objections. After carefully reviewing the Recommendation and the record, the Court approves and adopts the Recommendation in full, with one slight modification. The Recommendation states that, “[g]iven the sharp conflict” between Plaintiff’s “treating physicians and the opinions of the two DDS review physicians, the ALJ was obligated to order a consultative examination” to assist in resolving the conflict. (Id. at 10) (emphasis added). The Court agrees that on remand a consultative examination could be helpful and is probably the best path forward. But the Court is not convinced that a consultative examination is mandated. Certainly, the caselaw does not mandate one just because physicians disagree. Consultative examinations are not obligatory tiebreakers. Rather, it is only reversable error for an ALJ not to order a consultative examination “when such an examination is necessary for him to make an informed decision.” Dozier v. Heckler, 754 F.2d 274, 276 (8th Cir. 1985) (emphasis added); Conley v. Bowen, 781 F.2d 143, 146 (8th Cir. 1986); see also Swink v. Saul, 931 F.3d 765, 770 (8th Cir. 2019). On remand, the ALJ should either order a consultative examination or fully explain, in detail, why one is unnecessary for reaching an informed decision. With this slight modification, the Court approves and adopts the entire Recommendation. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT the Commissioner’s decision is REVERSED, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED this 14th Day of January 2020.

Lee P. Rudofsky UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION

CASSANDRA DENISE BLANCHARD PLAINTIFF

v. Case No. 4:19-cv-00068-LPR

ANDREW SAUL, DEFENDANT Commissioner of Social Security Administration

ORDER The Court received and reviewed the Recommended Disposition (“Recommendation”) filed by Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray. (Doc. 14). The parties have not filed objections. After carefully reviewing the Recommendation and the record, the Court approves and adopts the Recommendation in full, with one slight modification. The Recommendation states that, “[g]iven the sharp conflict” between Plaintiff’s “treating physicians and the opinions of the two DDS review physicians, the ALJ was obligated to order a consultative examination” to assist in resolving the conflict. (Id. at 10) (emphasis added). The Court agrees that on remand a consultative examination could be helpful and is probably the best path forward. But the Court is not convinced that a consultative examination is mandated. Certainly, the caselaw does not mandate one just because physicians disagree. Consultative examinations are not obligatory tiebreakers. Rather, it is only reversable error for an ALJ not to order a consultative examination “when such an examination is necessary for him to make an informed decision.” Dozier v. Heckler, 754 F.2d 274, 276 (8th Cir. 1985) (emphasis added); Conley v. Bowen, 781 F.2d 143, 146 (8th Cir. 1986); see also Swink v. Saul, 931 F.3d 765, 770 (8th Cir. 2019). On remand, the ALJ should either order a consultative examination or fully explain, in detail, why one is unnecessary for reaching an informed decision. With this slight modification, the Court approves and adopts the entire Recommendation. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT the Commissioner’s decision is REVERSED, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED this 14th Day of January 2020.

Lee P. Rudofsky UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Blanchard v. Social Security Administration, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blanchard-v-social-security-administration-ared-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack