Pearson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

10 Citing cases

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

    Civil Action 4:23-CV-146-DAS (N.D. Miss. Jun. 18, 2024)

    Case law has accumulated in the last several years that provides substantial guidance on how much explanation is sufficient. In Pearson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:20-CV-166-HSO-RPM, 2021 WL 3708047, at *5 (S.D.Miss. Aug. 11, 2021), report and recommendation adopted, No. 1:20-CV-166-HSO-RPM, 2021 WL 3663073 (S.D.Miss. Aug. 18, 2021), the court noted the level of specificity is context driven, but held the ALJ's recitation of the facts without providing any insight into his reasoning for a persuasiveness finding was not sufficient.

  2. Moran v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

    Civil Action 4:23-cv-00496-O-BP (N.D. Tex. Apr. 24, 2024)

    ” Cooley v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 587 F.Supp.3d 489, 498 (S.D.Miss. 2021) Pearson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:20-CV-166-HSO-RPM, 2021 WL 3708047, at *4 (S.D.Miss. Aug. 11, 2021), rec. adopted, No. 1:20-CV-00166-HSO-RPM, 2021 WL 3663073 (S.D.Miss. Aug. 18, 2021).

  3. Reddix v. Comm'r Of Soc. Sec.

    Civil Action 4:23-CV-164-DAS (N.D. Miss. Apr. 17, 2024)

    Case law has accumulated in the last several years providing substantial guidance on how much explanation is required. Pearson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:20-CV-166-HSO-RPM, 2021 WL 3708047, at *5 (S.D.Miss. Aug. 11, 2021), report and recommendation adopted, No. 1:20-CV-166-HSO-RPM, 2021 WL 3663073 (S.D.Miss. Aug. 18, 2021) (citing Ramirez v. Saul, No. SA-20-CV-00457-ESC, 2021 WL 2269473, at *6 (W.D. Tex. June 3, 2021))(A recitation of the facts without providing any reasoning for persuasiveness finding is not sufficient); Todd v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 3:20-CV-1374, 2021 WL 2535580, at *9 (N.D. Ohio June 3, 2021), report and recommendation adopted, No. 3:20 CV 1374, 2021 WL 2530846 (N.D. Ohio June 21, 2021) (The “terse reasoning” for rejecting the treating doctor's opinion was not sufficient because the ALJ did not point to any record evidence that was inconsistent with the opinion, and attributed the favorability of the opinion, without evidence, to physician sympathy or desire to avoid conflict with the patient.)

  4. Chapelle v. Kijakazi

    6:22-CV-05296 (W.D. La. Oct. 16, 2023)

    Id.See e.g. Pearson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 1:20-CV-166, 2021 WL 3708047, at *5 (S.D.Miss. Aug. 11, 2021) (internal citations omitted) (collecting cases), report and recommendation adopted, 1:20CV00166, 2021 WL 3663073 (S.D.Miss. Aug. 18, 2021).

  5. Bednorz v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

    No. 22-CV-00111-DC (W.D. Tex. Sep. 11, 2023)

    . See Pearson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:20-CV-166-HSO-RPM, 2021 WL 3708047, at *5 (S.D.Miss. Aug. 11, 2021), report and recommendation adopted, No. 1:20-CV-166-HSO-RPM, 2021 WL 3663073 (S.D.Miss. Aug. 18, 2021) (collecting cases that describe how courts have evaluated ALJ's supportability “when there is at least some mention of medical opinion persuasiveness.”).

  6. Nero v. Comm'r, SSA

    Civil Action 4:21-CV-00377-CAN (E.D. Tex. Sep. 29, 2022)   Cited 1 times

    Id. (citing Cooley v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 2:20-CV-46-RPM, 2021 WL 4221620, at *6 (S.D.Miss. Sept. 15, 2021)). “Stated differently, there must be a discernible logic bridge between the evidence and the ALJ's persuasiveness finding.” Pearson v. Comm'r, No. 1:20-cv-166, 2021 WL 3708047, at *5 (S.D.Miss. Aug. 11, 2021) (quotation omitted), report and recommendation adopted, No. 1:20-cv-00166, 2021 WL 3663073 (S.D.Miss. Aug. 18, 2021).

  7. Teixeira v. Comm'r, SSA

    Civil Action 4:21-CV-00003-SDJ-CAN (E.D. Tex. Jul. 12, 2022)   Cited 8 times

    Id. § 404.1520c(a); Pearson v. Comm'r, No. 1:20-CV-166-HSO-RPM, 2021 WL 3708047, at *4 (S.D.Miss. Aug. 11, 2021), report and recommendation adopted, No. 1:20-CV-00166-HSO-RPM, 2021 WL 3663073 (S.D.Miss. Aug. 18, 2021). Indeed, the new rule, § 404.1520c, was intended to enable courts to focus on the content of the evidence rather than on the source, Webster v. Kijakazi, 19 F.4th 715, 719 (5th Cir. 2021), and to that end, it expressly provides that the ALJ will not “defer or give any specific evidentiary weight, including controlling weight, to any medical opinion(s) or prior administrative medical finding(s), including those from the [claimant's] medical sources.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(a).

  8. Speight v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

    Civil Action 2:21-CV-52-KS-RPM (S.D. Miss. Jul. 6, 2022)   Cited 1 times

    As such, ALJs are “no longer required to give controlling weight” to the opinions of treating physicians. Pearson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:20-CV-166-HSO-RPM, 2021 WL 3708047, at *4 (S.D.Miss. Aug. 11, 2021) (citation omitted), adopted, No. 1:20-CV-166-HSO-RPM, 2021 WL 3663073 (S.D.Miss. Aug. 18, 2021). Instead, ALJs are required to consider the persuasiveness of medical opinions from different medical sources.

  9. Frazier v. Saul

    Civil Action 3:20-CV-578-TSL-RPM (S.D. Miss. Feb. 3, 2022)

    Audler v. Astrue, 501 F.3d 446, 448 (5th Cir. 2007) (quoting Clifton v. Chater, 79 F.3d 1007, 1009 (10th Cir. 1996)). See also Heidelberg v. Saul, No. 2:18-CV-187- KS-FKB, 2020 WL 5837028, at *4 (S.D.Miss. July 30, 2020), adopted, No. 2:18-CV-187-KS- FKB, 2020 WL 5821974 (S.D.Miss. Sept. 30, 2020); Pearson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:20- CV-166-HSO-RPM, 2021 WL 3708047, at *5 (S.D.Miss. Aug. 11, 2021) (explaining need for adequate discussion), adopted, No. 1:20-CV-00166-HSO-RPM, 2021 WL 3663073 (S.D.Miss. Aug. 18, 2021).

  10. Cooley v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

    587 F. Supp. 3d 489 (S.D. Miss. 2021)   Cited 48 times
    In Cooley v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 587 F.Supp.3d 489 (S.D.Miss. 2021), the ALJ erred in rejecting a treating provider's favorable citing to normal exam findings on conditions irrelevant to the causes of Cooley's alleged disability and disregarding multiple abnormal findings pertinent to the asserted cause of disability, providing an example of a factually accurate explanation that failed to logically connect the evidence to the ALJ's decision.

    N.Y. July 28, 2021), the ALJ's RFC determination neither needs to "perfectly match" a particular medical opinion, see, e.g.,Matta v. Astrue , 508 F. App'x 53, 56 (2d Cir. 2013) ; Carmen P. v. Saul , No. 19-CV-1557-L, 2021 WL 795312, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2021), nor find the sole supporting medical opinion entirely persuasive, Williams v. Berryhill , No. 3:18-CV-1913-BH, 2019 WL 4393635, at *13–14 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 13, 2019) ; Wycoff v. Berryhill , No. 4:18-CV-885, 2019 WL 699995, at *4–5 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 19, 2019) ; Kozlowski v. Colvin , No. 4:13-CV-020-A, 2014 WL 948653, at *4–6 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 11, 2014). Indeed, if "perfect matching" was required, the ALJ's RFC determination would be largely limited to rubberstamping a particular medical opinion, not making a determination " ‘based upon ‘all of the relevant evidence in the case record[.]’ " Pearson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. , No. 1:20-CV-166-HSO-RPM, 2021 WL 3708047, at *4 (S.D. Miss. Aug. 11, 2021), report and recommendation adopted , No. 1:20-CV-00166-HSO-RPM, 2021 WL 3663073 (S.D. Miss. Aug. 18, 2021) (quoting Gray v. Astrue , No. 1:09-CV-0101-BI, 2011 WL 856941, at *5 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 11, 2011) ). Here, the ALJ found Dr. Brown's medical opinion to be persuasive, but not "entirely" so.