United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division
SHELLY L. MARKLE, Plaintiff,
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
S. VAN BOKKELEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Shelly L. Markle seeks judicial review of the Social Security
Commissioner's decision denying her disability benefits,
and asks this Court to remand the case. For the reasons
below, this Court remands the ALJ's decision.
Overview of the Case
alleges that she became disabled on February 28, 2013. (R. at
10.) Plaintiff previously worked as a special-education
matron, but has not worked since 2013. (R. at 38.) The
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) found that
Plaintiff suffered from multiple severe conditions (R. at
12.), but the ALJ found that she could not perform past
relevant work as a child care attendant. (R. at 21.) The ALJ
also concluded that she could perform light work with some
limitations. (R. at 15-16.) Therefore, the ALJ denied her
benefits. (R. at 23.) This decision became final when the
Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review.
(R. at 1.) Plaintiff's date last insured is December 31,
2017. (R. at 12.)
Standard of Review
Court has authority to review the Commissioner's decision
under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The Court will ensure that the
ALJ built an “accurate and logical bridge” from
evidence to conclusion. Thomas v. Colvin, 745 F.3d
802, 806 (7th Cir. 2014). The Court will uphold decisions
that apply the correct legal standard and are supported by
substantial evidence. Briscoe ex rel. Taylor v.
Barnhart, 425 F.3d 345, 351 (7th Cir. 2005).
Commissioner follows a five-step inquiry in evaluating claims
for disability benefits under the Social Security Act:
(1) whether the claimant is currently employed; (2) whether
the claimant has a severe impairment; (3) whether the
claimant's impairment is one that the Commissioner
considers conclusively disabling; (4) if the claimant does
not have a conclusively disabling impairment, whether he can
perform his past relevant work; and (5) whether the claimant
is capable of performing any work in the national economy.
Kastner v. Astrue, 697 F.3d 642, 646 (7th Cir.
claimant bears the burden of proof at every step except step
five. Clifford v. Apfel, 227 F.3d 863, 868 (7th Cir.
argues that the ALJ erred in finding that she was not
disabled. Specifically, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred
in finding that she is capable of performing light work given
the limitations the ALJ assigned to her.
The ALJ Must Determine Which “Grid Rule”