United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division
OPINION AND ORDER
E. MARTIN, MAGISTRATE JUDGE
matter is before the Court on a Complaint [DE 1], filed by
Plaintiff Donald Eugene Doyle III on September 15, 2015, and
Plaintiff's Social Security Opening Brief in Support of
Judgment or Remand to the Commissioner [DE 15], filed by
Plaintiff on February 25, 2016. Plaintiff asks the Court to
reverse and remand the Commissioner's decision for
further proceedings. On June 2, 2016, the Commissioner filed
a response, and on June 15, 2016, Plaintiff filed a reply.
August 27, 2011, Plaintiff filed an application for benefits
alleging that he became disabled on September 1, 2008.
Plaintiff's application was initially denied and was
denied again on reconsideration. On February 11, 2014,
Plaintiff and his attorney appeared before Administrative Law
Judge (“ALJ”) David R. Bruce. Plaintiff,
Plaintiff's wife, and a vocational expert testified. On
March 19, 2014, the ALJ issued a decision finding that
Plaintiff was not disabled.
made the following findings under the required five-step
1. Plaintiff met the insured status requirements of the
Social Security Act through December 31, 2013.
2. Plaintiff did not engage in substantial gainful activity
from September 1, 2008, the alleged onset date, through his
date last insured.
3. Through the date last insured, Plaintiff had the following
severe impairments: degenerative disc disease and
4. Through the date last insured, Plaintiff does not have an
impairment or combination of impairments that meets or
medically equals any of the listed impairments in 20 CFR 404,
Subpart P, Appendix 1.
5. Through the date last insured, Plaintiff had the residual
functional capacity to perform the full range of sedentary
6. Through the date last insured, Plaintiff was unable to
perform any past relevant work.
7. Plaintiff was a younger individual on the date last
8. Plaintiff has at least a high school education and is able
to communicate in English.
9. Transferability of job skills is not material to the
determination of disability because applying the
Medical-Vocational Rules directly supports a finding of
“not disabled, ” whether ...