United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division
MARIAH N. COOPER, 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 Mariah N. Cooper on February 10, 2017, and on
Plaintiff's Brief in Support of Reversing the Decision of
the Commissioner of Social Security [DE 19], filed on July
19, 2017. Plaintiff requests that the July 23, 2015 decision
of the Administrative Law Judge denying her claim for
supplemental security income be reversed. On September 27,
2017, the Commissioner filed a response, and Plaintiff filed
a reply on October 18, 2017. For the following reasons, the
Court grants Plaintiff's request for reversal and remands
this matter for further proceedings.
filed an application for supplemental security income on May
2, 2013, alleging disability beginning April 1, 2013, based
on postpartum depression. The claim was denied initially and
on reconsideration. On March 3, 2015, Administrative Law
Judge Roxanne J. Kelsey (“ALJ”) held a hearing.
In attendance at the hearing were Plaintiff, Plaintiff's
mother, Plaintiff's attorney, and an impartial vocational
expert. On July 23, 2015, the ALJ issued a written decision
denying benefits, making the following findings:
1. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since May 2, 2013, the application date.
2. The claimant has the following severe impairments:
depression, including post-partum depression; anxiety;
bipolar disorder; headaches.
3. The claimant does not have an impairment or combination of
impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of
the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P,
4. After careful consideration of the entire record, the
undersigned finds that the claimant has the residual
functional capacity to perform a full range of work at all
exertional levels but with the following nonexertional
limitations: lacks the ability to understand, remember and
carry out detailed instructions because of her moderate
limitations in pace, but retains the sustained concentration
necessary for simple work of a routine and repetitive type;
would not be able to perform work requiring a production or
assembly line pace; would be able to perform work permitting
a more flexible pace; should experience no more than
occasional changes in the work setting.
5. The claimant has no past relevant work.
6. The claimant was born [in 1991] and was 22 years old,
which is defined as a younger individual age 18-49, on the
date the application was filed.
7. The claimant has at least a high school education and is
able to communicate in English.
8. Transferability of job skills is not an issue because the
claimant does not have past relevant work.
9. 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.
10. The claimant has not been under a disability, as defined
in the Social Security Act, since May 2, 2013, the date the
application was filed.
Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review,
leaving the ALJ's decision the final decision of the
Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.1481.
Plaintiff filed this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g) for review of the Agency's decision.
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