From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Scroggins v. Astrue

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
Jan 27, 2009
Civil Action No. 3:08-CV-1444-L (N.D. Tex. Jan. 27, 2009)

Summary

holding that it is error for the ALJ to use as the standard for a non-severe impairment that it "could have, at most, a minimal effect on a claimant's ability to work"

Summary of this case from Rollins v. Berryhill

Opinion

Civil Action No. 3:08-CV-1444-L.

January 27, 2009


ORDER


Before the court is Scroggins's Complaint, filed August 15, 2008. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and an order of the court in implementation thereof, the case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Irma C. Ramirez for review and submission of proposed findings of fact and recommendation for disposition. On December 23, 2008, the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge ("Report") was filed. No objections to the Report have been filed.

This is a social security case. Plaintiff Robin R. Scroggins ("Plaintiff") filed this action seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (the "Commissioner"), which denied her application for disability and supplemental security income benefits under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. The magistrate judge found that the administrative law judge failed to apply the standard set forth in Stone v. Heckler when he determined whether Plaintiff's impairment is severe.

752 F.2d 1099 (5th Cir. 1985).

After an independent review of the pleadings, file, record, applicable law, the magistrate judge's findings and conclusions, the court determines that the magistrate judge's findings and conclusions are correct, and they are hereby accepted by the court. Accordingly, the court grants Plaintiff's Brief in Support of Claim (Motion for Summary Judgment), denies Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, reverses the Commissioner's decision, and remands this case to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with the Report and this order. The clerk of the court shall effect this remand in accordance with the usual procedure.

It is so ordered


Summaries of

Scroggins v. Astrue

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
Jan 27, 2009
Civil Action No. 3:08-CV-1444-L (N.D. Tex. Jan. 27, 2009)

holding that it is error for the ALJ to use as the standard for a non-severe impairment that it "could have, at most, a minimal effect on a claimant's ability to work"

Summary of this case from Rollins v. Berryhill

remanding a case for a new hearing to address whether the claimant's alleged severe mental impairment prevented her from working, because the ALJ failed to address the claimant's medical records indicating that the claimant was taking two psychotropic prescription medications, i.e., Xanax and Wellbutrin

Summary of this case from Florkevicz v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

In Scroggins, the court found that the ALJ applied an incorrect standard in finding that the plaintiff's mental impairments were nonsevere. 598 F. Supp.2d at 805.

Summary of this case from Juarez v. Colvin

In Scroggins, the court determined that because there was a variance in the standard applied by the ALJ, and in the absence of Stone being cited, the Court concluded that the ALJ applied the incorrect standard.

Summary of this case from Lawson v. Astrue

In Scroggins, the District Court analyzed language identical to that used by the ALJ in the instant case, and concluded an incorrect severity standard had been applied.

Summary of this case from Rangel v. Astrue
Case details for

Scroggins v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:ROBIN R. SCROGGINS, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division

Date published: Jan 27, 2009

Citations

Civil Action No. 3:08-CV-1444-L (N.D. Tex. Jan. 27, 2009)

Citing Cases

Acosta v. Astrue

Consequently, the ALJ's standard, goes her argument, is contrary to the Fifth Circuit's slight abnormality…

Guzman v. Berryhill

According to Plaintiff, the Fifth Circuit has held that an impairment must be found to be severe at step two…