Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05020/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05020-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 865
Nature of Suit: Social Security - RSI (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:405g Review of HHS Decision (RSI)

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

SHELLY BRAGG PLAINTIFF

vs. Civil No. 06-5020

JO ANNE B. BARNHART,

Commissioner, Social Security Administration DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Now on this 1st day of August, 2006, there is pending before the undersigned, the

Commissioner’s Motion To Remand, filed herein on June 28, 2006, by the Commissioner of

Social Security (hereinafter "Commissioner") (Doc. #8). Plaintiff does not oppose the

Commissioner’s motion.

In the instant motion, the Commissioner asserts that this case should be remanded for

the following reasons:

For the reasons stated herein, Defendant requests that this case be

remanded by the Court so that the Commissioner may conduct further

administrative proceedings. The Commissioner seeks remand in order that

additional medical evidence submitted by Plaintiff to the Appeals Council

regrading her mental status can be fully evaluated in determining if

Plaintiff has a severe mental impairment within the meaning of the Act.

Additional evidence dated September 21, 2005, from Dr. Jackie

Wooldridge, a psychiatrist, indicates Plaintiff has marked and/or extreme

limitation in understanding and remembering, social interaction, sustained

concentration and persistence, and routine functioning as a result of a

bipolar disorder. Consideration of this additional evidence is necessary to

determine the severity of Plaintiff’s mental impairment. The ALJ will also

contact Dr. Wooldridge to obtain any treatment notes, and if such notes are

not available, the ALJ will obtain a consultative mental status evaluation. 

In addition, the opinion expressed in the February 17, 2005, physician’s

note from White Oak Medical that Plaintiff is unable to maintain gainful

employment (Tr. 198), will be fully considered pursuant to Social Security

Ruling 96-5p. Further, a proper credibility assessment of Plaintiff’s

Case 5:06-cv-05020-JRM Document 9 Filed 08/01/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-2-

subjective complaints and the testimony of any lay witnesses will be

performed pursuant to Polaski v. Heckler, 751 F.2d 943, 948 (8th Cir.

1984), 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929, and Social Security Ruling 96-7p.

(Doc. # 8, pp. 1-2).

Sentence four provides:

The court shall have the power to enter, upon the pleadings and

transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or

reversing the decision of the [Commissioner], with or without

remanding the cause for a rehearing.

42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

Accordingly, we conclude that the Commissioner’s motion requesting reversal of the

decision and remand, is well taken. The Commissioner’s decision is reversed and this matter is

remanded for further administrative hearing, further development of the record and other

appropriate actions necessary to accomplish the goals set forth in the motion (Doc. #8, pp. 1-2),

pursuant to sentence four, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for further proceedings, as specifically set forth

above and in the Commissioner’s motion (Doc. #8).

In addition, the undersigned finds that the Plaintiff’s Complaint should be and hereby is

dismissed without prejudice to the subsequent filing for attorney’s fees pursuant to the Equal

Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412. A separate Judgment shall be entered herein pursuant

to F.R.Civ.P. 58 and 52.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/Bobby E. Shepherd 

Honorable Bobby E. Shepherd 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 5:06-cv-05020-JRM Document 9 Filed 08/01/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>