You're viewing Docket Item 20 from the case Madru v. Commissioner of Social Security. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case: 2:12-cv-00189-JMV Doc #: 20 Filed: 06/04/13 1 of 2 PageID #: 624

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI

DELTA DIVISION

LISA KAY MADRU

VS.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY

PLAINTIFF

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:12CV00189-JMV

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 Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. 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), with any appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The court,

having reviewed the administrative record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law and

having heard oral argument, finds as follows, to-wit:

Consistent with the court’s ruling from the bench following the parties’ oral argument,

the court finds that meaningful judicial review is impossible because despite the ALJ’s

acknowledging receipt of Dr. Forster Ruhl’s mental Medical Source Statement during the

hearing– and receiving it into evidence– and the fact that the record indicates that plaintiff’s

counsel also submitted this evidence to the Appeals Council, the court did not find it in the

administrative record, nor was it discussed by either the ALJ or the Appeals Council in their

respective decisions. Therefore, it is highly likely that the said opinion was not considered by

the Commissioner. Additionally, there is no indication that the ALJ actually considered the

April 2011 physical Medical Source Statement of Dr. Ruhl. Again, there was no discussion of

Case: 2:12-cv-00189-JMV Doc #: 20 Filed: 06/04/13 2 of 2 PageID #: 625

this opinion in the ALJ’s decision. On remand, the ALJ is directed to consider Dr. Ruhl’s mental

and physical Medical Source Statements– along with all of the evidence in the record– and

conduct any additional proceedings not inconsistent with this order. The ALJ shall not neglect

to discuss the weight assigned to Dr. Ruhl’s opinions, and the reasons supporting such

assignment, in the new decision.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this case is REVERSED

and REMANDED for further proceedings.

This, the 4th day of June, 2013.

/s/ Jane M. Virden
U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-2-