Jenkins v. Astrue

1 Citing case

  1. Chevalier v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

    Civil Action 2:15-cv-2393 (S.D. Ohio May. 20, 2016)

    Three points provide context for how the substantial evidence analysis applies in this case. First, the substantial evidence argument becomes more difficult for the Commissioner to make where, as here, the ALJ acknowledges both that the x-rays were necessary to his decision and that the corresponding consultative examination was inadequate or incomplete. See, e.g., Jenkins v. Astrue, No. 3:10-CV-00546-J-JBT, 2011 WL 839404, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2011) ("The ALJ ordered the consultative examination because he needed it. . . . If the ALJ could not understand the report, it did no good to order it." (citations omitted)); McMillan v. Astrue, No. 3:08-CV-609-J-HTS, 2009 WL 651144, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 12, 2009) ("If, as is suggested by the hearing transcript quoted above, the ALJ perceived the 'report [was] inadequate or incomplete,' he should have recontacted the source and requested 'the missing information or' a revision.