Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_19-cv-00068/USCOURTS-ared-4_19-cv-00068-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:0405 Review of HHS Decision

---

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, 

Commissioner of Social Security Administration 

DEFENDANT 

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. 

Case 4:19-cv-00068-LPR Document 15 Filed 01/14/20 Page 1 of 2
2 

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 

Case 4:19-cv-00068-LPR Document 15 Filed 01/14/20 Page 2 of 2