United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division
OPINION AND ORDER
E. MARTIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on a Complaint [DE 1], filed by
Plaintiff James Joe Hansell on March 16, 2017, and
Plaintiff's Brief in Support of Reversing the Decision of
the Commissioner of Social Security [DE 17], filed by
Plaintiff on December 8, 2017. Plaintiff requests that the
decision of the Administrative Law Judge be reversed and
remanded for benefits or further proceedings. On January 22,
2018, the Commissioner filed a response, and on February 2,
2018, Plaintiff filed a reply.
2, 2013, Plaintiff filed an application for benefits alleging
that he became disabled on December 9, 1998. Plaintiff's
application was denied initially and upon reconsideration. On
May 20, 2015, Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”)
Janice Bruning held a video hearing at which Plaintiff, with
an attorney representative, and a vocational expert
testified. On December 17, 2015, the ALJ issued a decision
finding that Plaintiff was not disabled.
made the following findings under the required five-step
1. The claimant meets the insured status requirements of the
Social Security Act through December 31, 2014.
2. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since June 30, 2002.
3. The claimant has the following severe impairments:
learning disorder, borderline intellectual functioning,
affective disorder, and anxiety disorder.
4. The claimant does not have an impairment or combination of
impairments that meets or medically equals any of the listed
impairments in 20 CFR 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1.
5. The claimant has the residual functional capacity
(“RFC”) to perform a full range of work at all
exertional levels but with the following non-exertional
limitations: he is able to understand, remember, and carry
out simple, routine tasks, and perform the same tasks on a
regular basis; and perform work involving no public contact
and no more than occasional contact with co-workers and
supervisors. Additionally, the claimant is able to perform
work involving no hourly quotas, but he is capable of work
that is measured by what is completed by the end of a
workday; and he would benefit by having a supervisor check on
him twice a day (once in the morning and once in the
6. The claimant has no past relevant work.
7. The claimant was born on December 9, 1980 and was 18 years
old, defined as a younger individual age 18-49, on the
alleged disability onset date.
8. The claimant has at least a high school education and is
able to communicate in English.
9. Transferability of job skills is not an issue because the
claimant does not have ...