[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-13985 MAY 23, 2006
________________________ THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 04-00753-CV-M-E
ARTHUR J. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JO ANNE B. BARNHART,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Alabama
_________________________
(May 23, 2006)
Before HULL and WILSON, Circuit Judges, and DUPLANTIER *, District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
*
Honorable Adrian G. Duplantier, United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana, sitting by designation.
Arthur J. Williams appeals the district court’s order affirming the
Commissioner’s denial of his application for disability insurance benefits, 42
U.S.C. § 405(g). After review and oral argument, we vacate and remand.
In a previous remand order, the Appeals Council directed the Administrative
Law Judge (“ALJ”) to supplement the record with Williams’s Department of
Veterans Affairs (“VA”) medical records. The ALJ complied with the order and
requested the records, but apparently the records sent to the ALJ did not include
the VA’s Rating Decision, which found Williams disabled under the VA’s
disability framework. It is undisputed that the ALJ did not reference or address the
Rating Decision in its June 6, 2002 decision.
Thus, on remand Williams shall be allowed to supplement the record before
the ALJ with the VA’s Rating Decision. The ALJ then shall review Williams’s
claim again and specifically address in its decision the VA’s Rating Decision.
While we recognize that the ALJ’s prior decision addressed at some length
Williams’s VA medical evidence, nonetheless, in its decision the ALJ should
specifically also consider and address the VA’s Rating Decision itself.
Nothing here shall be construed as bearing on the ultimate outcome on
remand as to whether Williams is or is not disabled and entitled to benefits.
In conclusion, we vacate the district court’s order dated May 20, 2005 and
2
remand this case with instructions that it be returned to the Commissioner for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
3