Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bodo v. Berryhill

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division

March 20, 2018

THERESA A. BODO, Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          JOHN E. MARTIN MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court on a Complaint [DE 1], filed by Plaintiff Theresa A. Bodo on January 23, 2017, and Plaintiff's Brief in Support of Reversing the Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security [DE 16], filed by Plaintiff on June 30, 2017. Plaintiff requests that the decision of the Administrative Law Judge be reversed and remanded for further proceedings. On September 8, 2017, the Commissioner filed a response, and on September 20, 2017, Plaintiff filed a reply. For the following reasons, the Court grants Plaintiff's request for remand.

         I. Background

         On July 5, 2013, Plaintiff filed an application for supplemental security income benefits alleging that she was disabled starting on or before her application date. Plaintiff's application was denied initially and upon reconsideration. On May 4, 2015, Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Michael Carr held a hearing at which Plaintiff, with an attorney, and a vocational expert (“VE”) testified. On May 18, 2015, the ALJ issued a decision finding that Plaintiff was not disabled.

         The ALJ made the following findings under the required five-step analysis:

1. The claimant did not engage in substantial gainful activity during the period from her application date of July 5, 2013 through the date of the ALJ's decision.
2. The claimant had the severe impairments of anxiety, borderline intellectual functioning, dysthymic disorder, and degenerative disc disease of the thoraco-lumbar and cervical spine.
3. The claimant did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled the severity of one the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1.
4. The claimant had the residual functional capacity to lift and carry up to 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently, to stand and/or walk for 6 hours in an 8-hour workday and sit for 6 hours in an 8-hour workday, to push/pull as much as she can lift/carry; to frequently balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl; and to frequently climb ramps and stairs and occasionally climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds. With regard to understanding, remembering, and carrying out instructions, she was limited to performing simple, routine, and repetitive task (due to intellectual problems) and, with regard to both using judgment and dealing with changes in work setting, the claimant she was limited to simple work-related decisions. In terms of the ability to respond appropriately to supervision, coworkers, and work situations, she could tolerate occasional contact with supervisors, coworkers, and the general public.
5. The claimant had no past relevant work.
6. The claimant was a younger individual age 18-49 on the date she filed her application.
7. The claimant had a limited education and was able to communicate in English.
8. Transferability of job skills was not material because the claimant had no past relevant work.
9. Considering the claimant's age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity, there were jobs that existed in significant numbers in the national ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.