Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-3_15-cv-00344/USCOURTS-ared-3_15-cv-00344-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)

---

1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

JONESBORO DIVISION 

JOHN THOMPSON NIX, JR. PLAINTIFF 

v. No. 3:15-CV-00344-JTR 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, 

Acting Commissioner, 

Social Security Administration DEFENDANT 

ORDER REMANDING TO THE COMMISSIONER

John Nix (“Nix”) applied for social security disability benefits with an alleged 

onset date of September 17, 2012. (R. at 56). His applications were denied by the 

administrative law judge (“ALJ”), and the Appeals Council denied review. (R. at 1). 

The ALJ’s decision stands as the Commissioner’s final decision, and Nix has 

requested judicial review.1

For the reasons stated below, this Court reverses and remands the 

Commissioner’s decision. 

I. The Commissioner’s Decision 

The ALJ found that Nix had the severe impairments of status post right total 

knee arthroplasty, COPD, osteoarthritis, left eye blindness, and obesity. (R. at 17). 

The ALJ then determined that Nix’s impairments left him with the residual 

functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform sedentary work except that he could not 

                                                            

1

 The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge. 

Case 3:15-cv-00344-JTR Document 15 Filed 11/14/16 Page 1 of 4
2 

perform work requiring excellent bilateral vision; could only occasionally climb 

ramps or stairs, balance, stoop, crouch, and crawl; could never climb ladders, ropes, 

or scaffolds or kneel; must avoid unprotected heights, hazards, and concentrated 

exposure to fumes, odors, and gases. (R. at 18). The ALJ took testimony from an 

vocational expert (“VE”) and determined that the RFC precluded Nix’s past relevant 

work. (R. at 22). The VE testified that the RFC would allow work in jobs such as 

telephone sales and dispatcher, and the ALJ therefore held that Nix was not disabled. 

(R. at 22–23). 

II. Discussion 

The Court’s function on review is to determine whether the Commissioner’s 

decision is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole and whether 

it is based on legal error. Miller v. Colvin, 784 F.3d 472, 477 (8th Cir. 2015); see 

also 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 

Nix argues that the ALJ’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence 

on the record as a whole because the ALJ improperly weighed the opinions of Nix’s 

treating physician and failed to properly incorporate the limitations from those 

opinions. 

The ALJ gave great weight to a November 2013 opinion by Dr. Jason Brandt, 

Nix’s treating physician, but gave little weight to a December 2013 opinion by the 

same doctor. (R. at 21). Nix notes that, in weighing the November 2013 opinion, the 

Case 3:15-cv-00344-JTR Document 15 Filed 11/14/16 Page 2 of 4
3 

ALJ stated that the “opinion is given great weight as it is consistent with the 

claimant’s ability to perform work at the sedentary level with additional limitations 

due to his decreased range of motion.” (R. at 21). As Nix observes, this reasoning is 

backwards. An ALJ must give good reasons for the weight given to an opinion. Cline 

v. Colvin, 771 F.3d 1098, 1103 (8th Cir. 2014). In this instance, the ALJ seems to 

have come to a conclusion before assigning weight to the evidence, and such reasons 

are not good reasons. As Nix also notes, the November 2013 and December 2013 

opinions have no appreciable differences between them (R. at 419–21, 435–36). The 

differences between the opinions owe more to the different formats of the opinion 

forms rather than to any substantive difference. 

Nix also notes that the ALJ, in weighing the December 2013 opinion, stated 

that Nix “testified that he was able to drive, shop for groceries and help his disabled 

girlfriend.” (R. at 22). Nix argues that the actual testimony was that his girlfriend 

and teenage daughter assist him with household chores and that he can sit on a chair 

to prepare meals and set clothes on a chair in order to load them into a washing 

machine. (R. at 38–39, 42–43). The ALJ’s characterization of Nix’s testimony is 

inaccurate, and such a characterization does not support the ALJ’s decision. The 

ALJ’s reasons for weighing the opinions of Nix’s treating physician are inadequate, 

and the decision is therefore not supported by substantial evidence on the record as 

a whole. 

Case 3:15-cv-00344-JTR Document 15 Filed 11/14/16 Page 3 of 4
4 

III. Conclusion 

It is not the task of this Court to review the evidence and make an independent 

decision. Neither is it to reverse the decision of the ALJ because there is evidence in 

the record which contradicts his findings. The test is whether there is substantial 

evidence in the record as a whole which supports the decision of the ALJ. Miller, 

784 F.3d at 477. The Court has reviewed the entire record, including the briefs, the 

ALJ's decision, and the transcript of the hearing. The Court concludes that the record 

as a whole does not contain ample evidence that "a reasonable mind might accept as 

adequate to support [the] conclusion" of the ALJ in this case. Richardson v. Perales, 

402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971). The ALJ’s decision is therefore REVERSED and 

REMANDED, with instructions to further develop the record as necessary and to 

perform a proper evaluation of the treating physician opinions. 

It is so ordered this 14th day of November, 2016. 

 ____________________________________ 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 3:15-cv-00344-JTR Document 15 Filed 11/14/16 Page 4 of 4