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.

Clark v. Berryhill

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

September 13, 2018

KARLA J. LEWIS CLARK, Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Deputy Commissioner for Operations, Social Security Administration, Defendant.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          JOHN E. MARTIN MAGISTRATE JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

         This matter is before the Court on a Complaint [DE 1], filed by Plaintiff Karla J. Lewis Clark on April 20, 2017, and a Brief in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 17], filed December 18, 2017. Plaintiff requests that the decision of the Administrative Law Judge be reversed and remanded for benefits or further proceedings. On January 29, 2018, the Commissioner filed a response, and on February 26, 2018, Plaintiff filed a reply.

         I. Background

         On July 18, 2011, Plaintiff filed an application for benefits alleging that she became disabled on June 2, 2010. Plaintiff's application was denied initially and upon reconsideration. On May 16, 2013, Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Angelita Hamilton issued a decision finding that Plaintiff was not disabled, and Plaintiff appealed the decision. On September 17, 2015, this Court issued an opinion and order reversing and remanding the ALJ's decision, and the Appeals Council remanded the matter to the ALJ. On September 20, 2016, ALJ Shane McGovern held a video hearing at which Plaintiff, with an attorney representative, and a vocational expert (“VE”) testified. On November 30, 2016, the ALJ issued a second decision finding that Plaintiff was not disabled.

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

1. The claimant met the insured status requirements of the Social Security Act through December 31, 2016.
2. The claimant has engaged in substantial gainful activity since June 2, 2010, the alleged onset date. However, there are periods of 12 continuous months whereby the claimant did not engage in substantial gainful activity.
3. The claimant has severe impairments: degenerative disc disease of the lumbar and cervical spine; right elbow epicondylitis; bilateral knee osteoarthritis; presyncope; fibromyalgia, asthma; hypertension; gastroesphogeal reflux disease (GERD); and migraines.
4. The claimant does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of one the listed impairments in 20 CFR 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1.
5. The claimant has the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to lift and/or carry up to 10 pounds occasionally and nominal weight frequently, can sit for about six hours of an eight hour workday and stand and/or walk for about two hours out of an eight hour workday. The claimant can occasionally climb ramps and stairs; can occasionally stoop, kneel, balance, crouch, and crawl but can never climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds. She can frequently handle, finger, and feel. She should avoid all exposure to extreme cold, extreme heat, wetness, or humidity. She is limited to no more than occasional exposure to irritants, such as fumes, odors, dust, gasses or poorly ventilated areas. She is to avoid exposure to moving mechanical parts, unprotected heights, or bright sunshine/light that emulates bright sunshine.
6. The claimant is capable of performing past relevant work as a collection clerk. This work does not require the performance of work-related activities precluded by the claimant's residual functional capacity.
7. The claimant has not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, from June 2, 2010, through the date of the decision.

         The Appeals Council did not take jurisdiction of the claim, leaving the ALJ's decision the final decision of the Commissioner.

         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 ...


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.