From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Womack v. Astrue

United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
Jun 19, 2008
No. CIV-07-167-W (W.D. Okla. Jun. 19, 2008)

Summary

finding sua sponte that the ALJ erred at step four and explaining that “[t]his Court cannot ... ignore obvious and prejudicial errors, even if the litigants did not identify and debate them”

Summary of this case from C.D. v. Kijakazi

Opinion

No. CIV-07-167-W.

June 19, 2008


ORDER


On May 28, 2008, United States Magistrate Judge Valerie K. Couch issued a Report and Recommendation in this matter and recommended that the decision of Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("Commissioner"), denying the Applications for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income filed by plaintiff Gary D. Womack be reversed. Magistrate Judge Couch further recommended that this matter be remanded for additional administrative proceedings. The parties were advised of their right to object to Magistrate Judge Couch's Report and Recommendation, but neither party objected within the allotted time.

Upon de novo review of the record, the Court concurs with Magistrate Judge Couch's suggested disposition of this matter. Accordingly, the Court

(1) ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation issued on May 28, 2008;

(2) REVERSES the Commissioner's decision denying Womack's Applications for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income;

(3) REMANDS this matter to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for further proceedings before an administrative law judge ("ALJ");

(4) DIRECTS the ALJ upon remand inter alia (a) to ensure that all credibility determinations are "`closely and affirmatively linked to substantial evidence,'" Hackett v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1168, 1173 (10th Cir. 2005) (quoting Huston v. Bowen, 838 F.2d 1125, 1133 (10th Cir. 1988) (footnote omitted)), (b) to ensure at step four of the five-step sequential evaluation process, e.g.,Sorenson v. Bowen, 888 F.2d 706 (10th Cir. 1989), that testimony is elicited from the vocational expert that reconciles the discrepancies between that individual's testimony and the descriptions of jobs in the Directory of Occupational Titles and (c) to proceed in accordance with Magistrate Judge Couch's Report and Recommendation; and

Upon remand, the new medical evidence addressed by the parties and Magistrate Judge Couch may be presented for consideration by the administrative law judge.

(5) ORDERS that judgment pursuant to this Order issue forthwith.


Summaries of

Womack v. Astrue

United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
Jun 19, 2008
No. CIV-07-167-W (W.D. Okla. Jun. 19, 2008)

finding sua sponte that the ALJ erred at step four and explaining that “[t]his Court cannot ... ignore obvious and prejudicial errors, even if the litigants did not identify and debate them”

Summary of this case from C.D. v. Kijakazi

finding sua sponte that the ALJ erred at step four and explaining that "[t]his Court cannot . . . ignore obvious and prejudicial errors, even if the litigants did not identify and debate them"

Summary of this case from Purley v. Colvin

noting that while district courts decide appeals under the Social Security Act by considering the issues raised and argued in a plaintiff's brief, a court has a duty to scrutinize the record as a whole to determine whether the conclusions are reasonable and whether the adjudicator applied the correct legal standards to the evidence, especially in the context of a non-adversarial social security disability case

Summary of this case from George C. ex rel. J.C. v. Saul

remanding on issue plaintiff did not raise because "[i]n the interests of justice," "[t]his Court cannot . . . ignore obvious and prejudicial errors, even if the litigants did not identify and debate them"

Summary of this case from Cross v. Saul

remanding on issue plaintiff did not raise because "[i]n the interests of justice," "[t]his Court cannot . . . ignore obvious and prejudicial errors, even if the litigants did not identify and debate them"

Summary of this case from Parker v. Berryhill

observing that a reviewing court may not "abdicate its traditional judicial function, nor escape its duty to scrutinize the record as a whole to determine whether the conclusions reached are reasonable"

Summary of this case from Martinez v. Berryhill
Case details for

Womack v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:GARY D. WOMACK, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of the…

Court:United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma

Date published: Jun 19, 2008

Citations

No. CIV-07-167-W (W.D. Okla. Jun. 19, 2008)

Citing Cases

Williams v. Saul

This Court generally decides appeals under the Social Security Act by considering the issues raised and…

Terrie I. v. Kijakazi

However, the Court may not “abdicate its traditional judicial function, nor escape its duty to scrutinize the…