United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division
OPINION AND ORDER
MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN E. MARTIN JUDGE
matter is before the Court on a Complaint [DE 1], filed by
Plaintiff Leila Tyrina Thompson on February 13, 2018, and
Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of Reversing the
Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security [DE 15],
filed on June 8, 2018. Plaintiff requests that the decision
of the Administrative Law Judge be reversed and remanded for
further proceedings. On August 16, 2018, the Commissioner
filed a response, and Plaintiff filed a reply on September 6,
August 16, 2014, Plaintiff filed applications for disability
insurance benefits and supplemental security income, alleging
that she became disabled on February 25, 2014.
Plaintiff's applications were denied initially and upon
reconsideration. On October 14, 2016, Administrative Law
Judge (“ALJ”) Kathleen Kadlec held a hearing at
which Plaintiff, with an attorney representative, and a
vocational expert (“VE”) testified. On March 7,
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 December 31, 2010.
2. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since February 25, 2014, the alleged onset date.
3. The claimant has the following severe impairments:
multiple sclerosis and obesity.
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 sedentary work except
frequently reach overhead bilaterally; frequently climb ramps
and stairs; never climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds;
frequently balance, stoop, kneel, and crawl; never work at
unprotected heights; never be exposed to moving mechanical
parts; never operate a motor vehicle; never be exposed to
dust, odors, fumes, or pulmonary irritants; never work in
extreme heat; and be limited to moderate noise levels.
6. The claimant is capable of performing past relevant work
as a telephone solicitor and receptionist. 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 February 25, 2014, through
the date of the decision.
Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review,
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