Pearson v. Social Security Administration

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION BARRY PEARSON PLAINTIFF Vv. No. 4:20-cv-298-DPM SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Commissioner DEFENDANT ORDER The Commissioner objected to Magistrate Judge Kearney’s recommendation, which favors Pearson, so the Court has reviewed his recommendation de novo. FED. R. CIv. P. 72(b)(3). Pearson challenges whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ's finding that he doesn’t meet the criteria of Listing 1.04(A). Prosch v. Apfel, 201 F.3d 1010, 1012 (8th Cir. 2000). The Court generally won’t disturb the ALJ's finding if the record supports it. Dunahoo v. Apfel, 241 F.3d 1033, 1037 (8th Cir. 2001). But here, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Kearney.

Pearson makes a compelling case, and the ALJ’s perfunctory analysis of Listing 1.04(A) precludes meaningful judicial review; it is not at all clear to the Court that substantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s decision. Phillip v. Saul, 2020 WL 4001162, at *21-*24 (D. Neb. 15 July 2020) (reviewing Eighth Circuit decisions); Minnick v. Colvin, 775 F.3d 929, 936 (7th Cir. 2015). And the Court would undoubtedly benefit from knowing what particulars informed the AL]J’s conclusion in this close case. The Court therefore reverses the Commissioner’s decision and remands for further administrative review. The ALJ should provide a more thorough Step Three analysis.

As the Commissioner argues, whether a consultative examination is necessary is a judgment call for the ALJ. Recommendation, Doc. 20, adopted as clarified. Objections, Doc. 22, overruled.

So Ordered.

NP stetl f.

D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge _— fa May 20Al