United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division
OPINION AND ORDER
R. CHERRY MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on a Complaint [DE 1], filed by
Plaintiff Rosetta Fuller on December 28, 2015, and
Plaintiff's Opening Brief [DE 15], filed by Plaintiff on
June 20, 2016. Plaintiff requests that the Court reverse the
December 24, 2014 decision of the Administrative Law Judge
denying her disability insurance benefits and remand for
further proceedings. For the following reasons, the Court
denies Plaintiff's request.
December 21, 2012, Plaintiff Rosetta Fuller filed an
application for disability insurance benefits, alleging
disability beginning July 11, 2012. The claim was denied
initially and on reconsideration. On July 29, 2014, a hearing
was held before Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”)
Lorenzo Level. Participating in the hearing were Plaintiff,
her attorney, an impartial vocational expert, and two
impartial medical experts. The ALJ issued a written decision
on December 24, 2014, concluding that Plaintiff was not
disabled based on the following findings:
1. The claimant meets the insured status requirements of the
Social Security Act through December 31, 2017.
2. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since July 11, 2012, the alleged onset date.
3. The claimant has the following severe impairments:
degenerative disc disease, depression and anxiety.
4. The claimant does not have an impairment or combination of
impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of
one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P,
5. After careful consideration of the entire record, the
undersigned finds that the claimant has the residual
functional capacity to perform light work as defined in 20
CFR 416.967(b) except never climb ladders, ropes or scaffolds
and no more than occasional crawling. Claimant is limited to
frequent overhead reaching. She should avoid concentrated
exposure to hazards. Claimant can understand, remember and
carry out simple instructions and perform simple tasks. She
is limited to frequent interaction with the public, coworkers
6. The claimant is unable to perform any past relevant work.
7. The claimant was born [in 1960] and was 51 years old,
which is defined as an individual closely approaching
advanced age, on the date the application was filed.
8. The claimant 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 using the
Medical-Vocational Rules as a framework supports a finding
that the claimant is “not disabled, ” whether or
not the claimant has transferable job skills.
10. Considering the claimant's age, education, work
experience, and residual functional capacity, there are jobs
that exist in significant numbers in the national economy
that the claimant can perform.
11. The claimant has not been under a disability, as defined
in the Social Security Act, from July 11, 2012, through the
date of this decision.
(AR 20-32). Plaintiff then sought review before the
Agency's Appeals Council, which denied her request on
November 3, 2015, leaving the ALJ's decision as the final
decision of the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. §
404.981. On December 28, 2015, Plaintiff filed the Complaint
in this case.
parties filed forms of consent to have this case assigned to
a United States Magistrate Judge to conduct all further
proceedings and to order the entry of a final judgment in
this case. Therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to decide