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 on June 20, 2017, and Plaintiff's Brief in
Support of Reversing the Decision of the Commissioner of
Social Security [DE 13], filed on October 27, 2017. Plaintiff
requests that the decision of the Administrative Law Judge be
reversed and remanded for further proceedings. On December 7,
2017, the Commissioner filed a response, and Plaintiff
replied on December 22, 2017.
February 26, 2014, Plaintiff filed an application for
benefits alleging that she became disabled on August 27,
1993. Plaintiff's application was denied initially and
upon reconsideration. On April 7, 2016, Administrative Law
Judge (“ALJ”) Howard Kauffman held a hearing at
which Plaintiff, with an attorney, Plaintiff's parents,
and a vocational expert (“VE”) testified. On
April 28, 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 February 16, 2014, the application date.
2. The claimant has the following severe impairments: mild
3. The claimant does not have an impairment or combination of
impairments that met or medically equalled any of the listed
impairments in 20 CFR 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1.
4. The claimant has the residual functional capacity to
perform the full range of work at all exertional levels but
with the following nonexertional limitations: the claimant is
capable of simple, routine, and repetitive tasks. She cannot
work at production rate pace or meet strict quota
requirements, but she can meet all end of day goals. The
claimant can work in a low stress job defined as only
occasional changes in the work setting.
5. The claimant has no past relevant work.
6. The claimant was 20 years old, defined as 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 because the
claimant does not have past relevant work.
9. Considering the claimant's age, education, work
experience, and residual functional capacity, there are jobs
that exist in significant numbers in the national ...