Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

McGaughey v. Astrue

September 30, 2009

JAMES MCGAUGHEY, SR., PLAINTIFF,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: VICTOR B. Kenton United States Magistrate Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

(Social Security Case)

This matter is before the Court for review of the decision by the Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff's application for disability benefits. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(c), the parties have consented that the case may be handled by the Magistrate Judge. The action arises under 42 U.S.C. §405(g), which authorizes the Court to enter judgment upon the pleadings and transcript of the Administrative Record ("AR") before the Commissioner. The parties have filed the Joint Stipulation ("JS"), and the Commissioner has filed the certified AR.

Plaintiff raises the following issues:

1. Whether the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") properly developed the record;

2. Whether the ALJ properly determined that Plaintiff's condition meets or equals a Listing;

3. Whether the ALJ properly considered Plaintiff's testimony; and

4. Whether the ALJ properly considered the mental and physical demands of Plaintiff's past relevant work. (JS at 2-3.)

This Memorandum Opinion will constitute the Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law. After reviewing the matter, the Court concludes that for the reasons set forth, the decision of the Commissioner must be reversed.

I THE ALJ HAD A DUTY TO DEVELOP THE RECORD, BUT DID NOT ERR IN HIS DETERMINATION THAT PLAINTIFF'S CONDITION DOES NOT MEET OR EQUAL A LISTING

Addressing Plaintiff's first two issues, he contends that the absence in the original record of a January 31, 2006 consultative examination ("CE") by Dr. Taylor, a clinical psychologist, rendered the ALJ unable to properly analyze Dr. Taylor's findings. Plaintiff contends that the ALJ should have developed the record by obtaining and addressing Dr. Taylor's CE report. Related to this is Plaintiff's second issue, in which he argues that the ALJ failed to find that he meets Listing 12.05 (mental retardation). (See 20 C.F.R. Part 404, subpart P, Appendix I, section 1205C.)

As to the first issue, Dr. Taylor's CE report is in the supplemental record at AR 164-168. Accepting Plaintiff's contention that the ALJ failed to review Dr. Taylor's report, and should have obtained it, the Court notes that the ALJ did examine the following psychiatric evaluations:

1. Dr. Kikani, on June 15, 2006 (AR 143-146);

2. Dr. Smith, on April 19, 2007 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.