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 Carrie Anne Moore on February 2, 2018, and
Plaintiff's Brief in Support of Her Motion to Reverse the
Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security [DE 16],
filed August 16, 2018. Plaintiff requests that the decision
of the Administrative Law Judge be reversed and remanded for
an award of benefits or, in the alternative, for further
proceedings. On September 6, 2018, the Commissioner filed a
response, and on October 12, 2018, Plaintiff filed a reply.
October 23, 2014, Plaintiff filed applications for benefits
alleging that she became disabled on October 2, 2014.
Plaintiff's applications were denied initially and upon
reconsideration. On February 6, 2017, Administrative Law
Judge (“ALJ”) Kevin Vodak held a hearing at which
Plaintiff and a vocational expert (“VE”)
testified. Plaintiff was represented by an attorney at the
hearing. On April 28, 2017, 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, 2019.
2. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since October 2, 2014, the alleged onset date.
3. The claimant has the following severe impairments:
borderline personality disorder, bipolar I disorder,
post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and gambling disorder.
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 a full range of work at all exertional levels but
with the following nonexertional limitations: the claimant is
limited to understanding, remembering, and carrying out
simple, routine, and repetitive tasks, She can frequently
interact with supervisors and coworkers, and occasionally
interact with the public. The claimant is able to engage in
no more than occasional decision-making and be exposed to no
more than occasional changes in her job setting.
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 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, ” ...