United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division
OPINION AND ORDER
E. MARTIN MAGISTRATE JUDGE
matter is before the Court on a Complaint [DE 1], filed by
Plaintiff Michelle Meyer on July 3, 2017, and Plaintiff's
Brief in Support of Her Motion to Reverse the Decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security [DE 18], filed February 23,
2018. Plaintiff requests that the decision of the
Administrative Law Judge be reversed and remanded for further
proceedings. On March 23, 2018, the Commissioner filed a
response, and on April 19, 2018, Plaintiff filed a reply.
31, 2013, Plaintiff filed an application for benefits
alleging that she became disabled on October 31, 2002.
Plaintiff's application was denied initially and upon
reconsideration. On April 18, 2016, Administrative Law Judge
(“ALJ”) William E. Sampson held a hearing at
which Plaintiff, with an attorney, and a vocational expert
(“VE”) testified. On July 7, 2016, the ALJ issued
a decision finding that Plaintiff was not disabled.
made the following findings under the required five-step
1. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since May 31, 2013, the application date.
2. The claimant has severe impairments: degenerative disc
disease, seizure disorder, blood clotting disorder,
depression, anxiety, and ADHD.
3. The claimant does not have an impairment or combination of
impairments that meet or medically equal the severity of one
the listed impairments in 20 CFR 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1.
4. The claimant had the residual functional capacity to
perform light work, except the claimant can lift and carry
twenty pounds occasionally and ten pounds frequently. The
claimant can sit for six hours and stand and/or walk for six
hours for a total of eight hours in a workday, with normal
breaks. The claimant can occasionally climb stairs and ramps,
but cannot climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds. The claimant
can occasionally balance, stoop, crouch, kneel, and crawl.
The claimant must avoid concentrated exposure to extreme cold
and hazards such as dangerous moving machinery and
unprotected heights. The claimant is limited to frequent, but
not constant, reaching with her bilateral upper extremities
and frequent, but not constant, handling and fingering with
her dominant right upper extremity. The claimant is limited
to simple, routine, repetitive tasks and cannot perform
production pace work.
5. The claimant has no past relevant work.
6. The claimant was a younger individual age 18-49, on the
date the application was filed.
7. The claimant has at least a high school education and is
able to communicate in English.
8. Transferability of job skills is not an issue in this case
because the claimant's past relevant work is unskilled.
9. Considering the claimant's age, education, work
experience, and residual functional capacity, there are jobs
that exist in significant numbers in the national ...