United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division, Lafayette
OPINION AND ORDER
E. MARTIN MAGISTRATE JUDGE
matter is before the Court on a Complaint [DE 1], filed by
Plaintiff Edward Cody Goodrich on January 12, 2018, and
Plaintiff's Brief [DE 24], filed on June 22, 2018.
Plaintiff requests that the decision of the Administrative
Law Judge be reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
On September 13, 2018, the Commissioner filed a response, and
on October 18, 2018, Plaintiff filed a reply.
28, 2014, Plaintiff filed applications for disability
insurance benefits and supplemental security income, alleging
that he became disabled on October 9, 2013. Plaintiff's
applications were denied initially and upon reconsideration.
On December 14, 2016, Administrative Law Judge
(“ALJ”) Shane McGovern held a hearing at which
Plaintiff, with an attorney representative, and a vocational
expert (“VE”) testified. Plaintiff's mother
also testified. On March 8, 2017, the ALJ issued a decision
finding that Plaintiff was not disabled, and Plaintiff
appealed the decision.
made the following findings under the required five-step
1. The claimant meets the insured status requirements of the
Social Security Act through June 30, 2018.
2. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since October 9, 2013, the alleged onset date.
3. The claimant has the following severe impairments:
epilepsy; depression; social anxiety disorder; generalized
anxiety disorder; and panic disorder with agoraphobia.
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
(“RFC”) to perform a full range of work at all
exertional levels but with the following nonexertional
limitations: the claimant is never to climb ladders, ropes,
or scaffolds; the claimant is limited to no more than
frequent climbing of ramps and stairs, balancing, stooping,
crouching, kneeling, and crawling; the claimant must avoid
all exposure to moving mechanical parts and unprotected
heights; the claimant is limited to simple routine and
repetitive tasks and work that requires no more than simple
work related decisions; the claimant must avoid all
interaction with the public and no more than occasional
interaction with coworkers and supervisors.
6. The claimant is unable to perform any past relevant work.
7. The claimant was 27 years old, which is defined as a
younger individual age 18-49, 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 or
not the claimant has transferrable job skills.
10. Considering the claimant's age, education, work
experience, and residual functional capacity, there are jobs
that exist in significant numbers in the national economy
that the claimant can perform.
11. The claimant has not been under a disability, as defined
in the Social Security Act, from October 9, 2013, through the
date of the decision.
Appeals Council did not take jurisdiction of the claim,
leaving the ALJ's decision the final decision of 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
this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and 42 U.S.C.