United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Fort Wayne Division
OPINION AND ORDER
MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN E. MARTIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
matter is before the Court on a Complaint [DE 1], filed by
Plaintiff Barbara Mucha, and Plaintiff's Opening Brief
[DE 25], filed July 5, 2018. Plaintiff requests that the
decision of the Administrative Law Judge be reversed and
remanded for further proceedings. On October 12, 2018, the
Commissioner filed a response. For the following reasons, the
Court grants Plaintiff's request for remand.
February 21, 2014, Plaintiff filed an application for
benefits alleging disability beginning January 29, 2014.
Plaintiff's application was denied initially and upon
reconsideration. On March 7, 2016, Administrative Law Judge
(“ALJ”) Shane McGovern held a hearing at which
Plaintiff, with an attorney, and a vocational expert
(“VE”) testified. On March 30, 2016, the ALJ
issued a decision finding that Plaintiff was not disabled.
made the following findings under the required five-step
1. The claimant meets the insured status requirements of the
Social Security Act through December 31, 2017.
2. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since January 29, 2014, the application date.
3. The claimant has the following severe impairments:
obesity; diabetes; mild carpal tunnel syndrome on the right;
depression; borderline personality disorder; agoraphobia
without a history of panic disorder and insomnia.
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
5. The claimant has the residual functional capacity to
perform sedentary work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(a)
except the claimant cannot operate foot controls on the left;
never climb ladders, ropes or scaffolds; occasionally climb
ramps and stairs; occasionally balance, stoop, crouch, kneel,
and crawl; frequently handle, finger and feel bilaterally; no
exposure to excess vibration; no use of dangerous or moving
machinery; no exposure to unprotected heights; she is limited
to simple, routine and repetitive tasks not a production rate
pace; brief and superficial interaction with the public;
occasional interaction with coworkers and supervisors and no
work that requires tandem tasks or teamwork.
6. The claimant is unable to perform any past relevant work.
7. The claimant was 45 years old, which is defined as a
younger individual age 45-49, on the alleged disability onset
8. The claimant has at least a high school education and is
able to communicate in English.
9. Transferability of job skills is not material to the
determination of disability because using the
Medical-Vocational rules as a framework supports a finding
that the claimant is “not disabled, ” whether ...