Louis M. v O’Malley (S.D. Ga. Oct. 9, 2024) - AC evidence, medical opinions, RFC, DOT/VE conflict

Louis M. v O’Malley, Case No 4:24-cv-00044-JRH-CLR (S.D. Ga. Oct. 9, 2024) (Order by U.S. District Judge J. Randal Hall)

Briefs for purchase: Plaintiff’s Brief and remand order

Topics addressed:

• New evidence submitted to the Appeals Council

• Definition of a medical source opinion

• Medical opinions – required findings

• Medical opinions – consistency

• Medical opinions – supportability

• Medical opinions – articulation requirements

• Improper substitution of medical opinion by the ALJ

• RFC – lack of support for findings

• RFC – reliance on ALJ’s lay interpretation of the record

• RFC – daily activities 

• Vocational testimony – inconsistency with the DOT 

Rulings addressed:

• Social Security Ruling 83-10
• Social Security Ruling 83-12
• Social Security Ruling 96-8p
• Social Security Ruling 00-4p (Note: rescinded and replaced by SSR 24-3p)

Issues briefed:

1)  The Appeals Council failed to address newly submitted evidence.

2)  The ALJ did not properly evaluate the medical opinion evidence.

3)  The residual functional capacity finding is not supported by substantial evidence.

4)  The step five determination is unsupported by substantial evidence due to an apparent but unresolved conflict between vocational testimony and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles job requirements.

Court decision:

After Plaintiff briefed the merits, the Commissioner chose not to defend the ALJ’s decision and instead, sought a voluntary remand. The parties negotiated the remand terms and the court remanded for further proceedings.