United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division
TRINA M. COX, Plaintiff,
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
R. CHERRY MAGISTRATE JUDGE
matter is before the Court on a Complaint [DE 1], filed by
Plaintiff Trina M. Cox on May 3, 2016, and a Plaintiff's
Brief in Support of Reversing the Decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security [DE 15], filed by Plaintiff
on October 31, 2016. Plaintiff requests that the January 29,
2015 decision of the Administrative Law Judge regarding her
claims for disability insurance benefits and supplemental
security income be reversed and remanded for further
proceedings. On December 13, 2016, the Commissioner filed a
response. Plaintiff filed a reply on January 19, 2017. For
the following reasons, the Court grants Plaintiff's
request for remand.
filed her application for disability insurance benefits and
supplemental security income on March 7, 2013, alleging
disability beginning December 1, 2012. The claim was denied
initially and on reconsideration. Plaintiff requested a
hearing, which was held before Administrative Law Judge
Janice M. Bruning (ALJ) on October 27, 2014. On January 29,
2015, the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision, making the
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 December 1, 2012, the alleged onset date.
3. The claimant has the following severe impairments:
obesity, lumbosacral tear, affective disorder, anxiety
disorder and history of substance abuse.
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 except never climb
ladders, rope or scaffolding and no more than occasionally
engage in stair and ramp climbing, balancing, stooping,
kneeling, crouching, ending, twisting and crawling; and
limited to simple repeated routine tasks that do not require
public contact for work related purposes and no more than
occasional contact with coworkers and supervisors.
6. The claimant is unable to perform any past relevant work.
7. The claimant was born [in 1978] and was 34 years old,
which is defined as a younger individual age 18-49, on the
alleged disability onset date.
8. The claimant has a limited 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 ...