United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division
OPINION AND ORDER
E. MARTIN MAGISTRATE JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
matter is before the Court on a Complaint [DE 1], filed by
Plaintiff William Gary Eastman on March 16, 2016, and
Plaintiff's Brief in Support of Reversing the Decision of
the Commissioner of Social Security [DE 21], filed by
Plaintiff on November 3, 2016. Plaintiff requests that the
decision of the Administrative Law Judge be reversed and
remanded for further proceedings. On January 24, 2017, the
Commissioner filed a response, and on February 3, 2017,
Plaintiff filed a reply. For the following reasons, the Court
grants Plaintiff's request for remand.
March 2, 2012, Plaintiff filed an application for benefits
alleging that he became disabled on February 25, 2012.
Plaintiff's application was denied initially and upon
reconsideration. On June 16, 2014, Administrative Law Judge
(“ALJ”) John K. Kraybill held a video hearing at
which Plaintiff, Plaintiff's mother, a medical expert,
and a vocational expert (“VE”) testified. On
November 10, 2014, the ALJ issued a decision finding that
Plaintiff was not disabled.
made the following findings under the required five-step
1. The claimant met the insure status requirements of the
Social Security act through December 31, 2016.
2. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since February 25, 2012, the alleged onset date.
3. The claimant has severe impairments: degenerative disc
disease and degenerative joint disease, lumbar spine;
degenerative joint disease, left knee; and seizure disorder.
4. The claimant does not have an impairment or combination of
impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of
one the listed impairments in 20 CFR 404, Subpart P, Appendix
5. The claimant has the residual functional capacity to
perform light work as defined in 20 CFR §§
404.1567(b) and 416.967(b) with the additional limitations
that the claimant can: lift and carry up to 20 pounds
occasionally, 10 pounds frequently; stand and/or walk about 6
hours in an 8-hour workday; sit for about 6 hours in an
8-hour workday; and push and/or pull to include operations of
hand/foot controls with the bilateral upper and lower
extremities as restricted by the limitations on lifting
and/or carrying subject to the environmental limitations of
avoiding all exposure to unprotected heights.
6. The claimant is capable of performing past relevant work
as a bagger. This work does not require the performance of
work-related activities precluded by the claimant's
residual functional capacity.
7. The claimant has not been under a disability, as defined
in the Social Security Act, from February 25, 2012, through
the date of this decision.
January 19, 2016, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's
request for review, leaving the ALJ's decision the final
decision of the Commissioner.
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