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.

Dulin v. Berryhill

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division

August 29, 2018

SARAH DULIN, Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Deputy Commissioner for Operations, Social Security Administration, Defendant.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          JOHN E. MARTIN MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         This 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.

         I. Background

         On 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.

         The ALJ made the following findings under the required five-step analysis:

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 intellectual disability.
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 ...

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.