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.

Bishop v. Berryhill

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Fort Wayne Division

August 14, 2018

ASHLEY RENEE BISHOP, Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Deputy Commissioner for Operations, Social Security Administration, Defendant.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          PAUL R. CHERRY MAGISTRATE JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

         This matter is before the Court on a Complaint [DE 1], filed by Plaintiff Ashley Renee Bishop on August 23, 2017, and an Opening Brief of Plaintiff in Social Security Appeal [DE 13], filed by Plaintiff on January 2, 2018. Plaintiff requests that the June 9, 2016 decision of the Administrative Law Judge denying her claim for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income be reversed and remanded for further proceedings. On February 7, 2018, the Commissioner filed a response, and Plaintiff filed a reply on March 20, 2018. For the following reasons, the Court grants Plaintiff's request for remand.

         PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         On March 12, 2012, Plaintiff filed applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income, alleging disability beginning March 12, 2014. The applications were denied initially and on reconsideration. Administrative Law Judge Stephanie Katich (“ALJ”) held a hearing. In attendance at the hearing were Plaintiff, Plaintiff's attorney, and an impartial vocational expert. On June 9, 2016, the ALJ issued a written decision denying benefits, making the following findings:

1. The claimant meets the insured status requirements of the Social Security Act through December 31, 2018.
2. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since March 12, 2014, the alleged onset date.
3. The claimant has the following severe impairments: bipolar disorder with schizophrenic tendency, borderline personality disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and severe depression.
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, Appendix 1.
5. 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: the claimant can understand, remember and carry out simple instructions and tasks, she can make judgments on simple work related decisions, she can respond appropriately to usual work situations, she can respond appropriately to occasional, brief and superficial interactions with coworkers and supervisors, she should avoid work activity involving the general public, and she can deal with routine changes in a routine work setting.
6. The claimant is unable to perform her past relevant work.
7. The claimant was born [in 1988] and was 25 years old, which is defined as 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 in this case because the claimant does not have past relevant work.
10. 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.
11. The claimant has not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, from March 12, 2014, through the date of this decision.

(AR 13-24).

         The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review, leaving the ALJ's decision the final decision of the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.981, 416.1481. Plaintiff filed this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c) for review of the Agency's decision.

         The 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 this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

         STANDARD ...


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.