Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security

Full title: Charles E. Smith, Plaintiff, v. Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant

Court: United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

Date published: Sep 21, 2009

Case No. 2:08-cv-0648 (S.D. Ohio Sep. 21, 2009)

Opinion

Case No. 2:08-cv-0648.

September 21, 2009

ORDER

ALGENON MARBLEY, District Judge

This matter is before the Court to consider de novo the Commissioner's objections to a Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge recommending that judgment be entered in favor of the plaintiff. For the following reasons, those objections will be overruled and judgment will be entered for the plaintiff.

The Commissioner asserts, in the objections, that there was no error in the way in plaintiff's subjective testimony was evaluated, or in the way in which the objective medical evidence was assessed. The Commissioner argues that the discussion of these issues comported with the regulatory standards and that the Report and Recommendation erroneously concluded that a more detailed explanation of these factors was necessary.

Without going into great detail, the Court finds the counter-arguments presented by the plaintiff in his memorandum in opposition to the Commissioner's objections to be persuasive. There still appears to be no reason why the Administrative Law Judge asked the medical expert not to take plaintiff's pain into account in expressing an opinion as to plaintiff's residual functional capacity, and the ALJ's mere articulation of the factors which must be considered when evaluating subjective complaints of pain, without any detailed discussion of why those factors supported the conclusion reached, is also a sufficient reason for remand. Further, the Court agrees that many of the statements made about plaintiff's pain do not have substantial support in the record. For all of these reasons, a sentence four remand is required in this case.

For these reasons, the Commissioner's objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are OVERRULED, and the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. The plaintiff's statement of errors is SUSTAINED, the decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED, and this case is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further proceedings pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), sentence four. The Clerk is directed to enter a judgment to that effect.