SPRATLIN v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

M.D. Georgia

SPRATLIN v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

DecidedMarch 13, 2024

Docket3:23-cv-00123

StatusUnknown

This text of SPRATLIN v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY (SPRATLIN v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

SPRATLIN v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, (M.D. Ga. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATHENS DIVISION NATALIE SPRATLIN, : : Plaintiff, : : vs. : Case No. 3:23-cv-123-TES-MSH : MARTIN O’MALLEY, : Commissioner of Social Security, : : Defendant. : ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the Defendant’s unopposed motion to remand this case to the Commissioner for further action under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Upon consideration of the motion, and the memorandum in support thereof, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the decision of the Commissioner is hereby reversed under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and this case is hereby remanded. On remand, the Administrative Law Judge will give further consideration to the claimant’s alleged symptoms; further consideration to the persuasiveness of the opinion evidence from medical sources Raheem Robertson, M.D., Dipal Patel, M.D., and consultative examiner Richard Bank, Psy.D.; reconsider the claimant’s maximum residual functional capacity; and if warranted, obtain supplemental evidence from a vocational expert to clarify the effects of the assessed limitations on the occupational base. The Administrative Law Judge will also offer the claimant the opportunity for a hearing; take further action to complete the administrative record; and issue a new decision. Therefore, the Court hereby reverses the Commissioner’s decision under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) with a remand of the cause to the Commissioner for further proceedings. See Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (1993); Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89 (1991). The clerk of the Court will enter a separate judgment pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. IT IS SO ORDERED, this _____1_3_t_h_______ day of Ma rch , 2024.

s/Tilman E. Self, III HONORABLE TILMAN E. SELF, III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Presented by:

PETER D. LEARY UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: /s/Ealy Ko1 Ealy Ko Special Assistant United States Attorney Social Security Administration Pennsylvania Bar No. 314381 Office of Program Litigation, Office 5 Office of the General Counsel Social Security Administration 6401 Security Boulevard Baltimore, MD 21235 Tel: 410-965-3934 Fax: 833-411-0842 Email: ealy.ko@ssa.gov 1 Ealy Ko is an attorney for the Social Security Administration who has been appointed to serve as a Special Assistant United States Attorney for the Middle District of Georgia in this case.

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATHENS DIVISION NATALIE SPRATLIN, : : Plaintiff, : : vs. : Case No. 3:23-cv-123-TES-MSH : MARTIN O’MALLEY, : Commissioner of Social Security, : : Defendant. : ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the Defendant’s unopposed motion to remand this case to the Commissioner for further action under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Upon consideration of the motion, and the memorandum in support thereof, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the decision of the Commissioner is hereby reversed under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and this case is hereby remanded. On remand, the Administrative Law Judge will give further consideration to the claimant’s alleged symptoms; further consideration to the persuasiveness of the opinion evidence from medical sources Raheem Robertson, M.D., Dipal Patel, M.D., and consultative examiner Richard Bank, Psy.D.; reconsider the claimant’s maximum residual functional capacity; and if warranted, obtain supplemental evidence from a vocational expert to clarify the effects of the assessed limitations on the occupational base. The Administrative Law Judge will also offer the claimant the opportunity for a hearing; take further action to complete the administrative record; and issue a new decision. Therefore, the Court hereby reverses the Commissioner’s decision under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) with a remand of the cause to the Commissioner for further proceedings. See Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (1993); Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89 (1991). The clerk of the Court will enter a separate judgment pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. IT IS SO ORDERED, this _____1_3_t_h_______ day of Ma rch , 2024.

s/Tilman E. Self, III HONORABLE TILMAN E. SELF, III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Presented by:

PETER D. LEARY UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: /s/Ealy Ko1 Ealy Ko Special Assistant United States Attorney Social Security Administration Pennsylvania Bar No. 314381 Office of Program Litigation, Office 5 Office of the General Counsel Social Security Administration 6401 Security Boulevard Baltimore, MD 21235 Tel: 410-965-3934 Fax: 833-411-0842 Email: ealy.ko@ssa.gov 1 Ealy Ko is an attorney for the Social Security Administration who has been appointed to serve as a Special Assistant United States Attorney for the Middle District of Georgia in this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

SPRATLIN v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spratlin-v-commissioner-of-social-security-gamd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack