United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Fort Wayne Division
OPINION AND ORDER
R. CHERRY MAGISTRATE JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
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.
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
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,
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.
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
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.