United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division
JAMES E. STANTON, Plaintiff,
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Deputy Commissioner for Operations, Social Security Administration, Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
E. MARTIN MAGISTRATE JUDGE
matter is before the Court on a Complaint [DE 1], filed by
Plaintiff James E. Stanton, and Plaintiff's Memorandum in
Support of Reversing the Decision of the Commissioner of
Social Security [DE 15], filed June 4, 2018. Plaintiff
requests that the decision of the Administrative Law Judge be
reversed and remanded for further proceedings. On July 16,
2018, the Commissioner filed a response, and on July 30,
2018, Plaintiff filed a reply. For the following reasons, the
Court grants Plaintiff's request for remand.
January 26, 2015, Plaintiff filed an application for benefits
alleging disability beginning December 1, 2006.
Plaintiff's application was denied initially and upon
reconsideration. On January 13, 2017, Administrative Law
Judge (“ALJ”) Diane S. Davis held a video hearing
at which Plaintiff, with counsel, and a vocational expert
(“VE”) testified. On Feburary 7, 2017, the ALJ
issued a decision finding that Plaintiff was not disabled.
made the following findings under the required five-step
1. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since January 26, 2015, the application date.
2. The claimant has the following severe impairments:
3. 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
4. The claimant has the residual functional capacity to
perform a full range of work at all exertional levels, but
with the following non-exertional limitations: The claimant
cannot climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds, and should avoid
work involving hazards such as unprotected heights and moving
mechanical parts. He can understand, remember, and carry out
simple, routine tasks involving only simple, work-related
decisions. He can adapt to routine workplace changes. The
claimant can work in proximity to others and tolerate
occasional interaction with others. He can persist in such
activities in two-hour intervals with adequate pace and
5. The claimant has no past relevant work.
6. The claimant was 48 years old, which is defined as a
younger individual age 18-49, on the date the application was
filed. The claimant subsequently changed age category to
closely approaching advanced age.
7. The claimant has a limited education and is able to
communicate in English.
8. Transferability of job skills is not an issue because the
claimant does not have past relevant work.
9. Considering the claimant's age, education, work
experience, and residual functional capacity, there are jobs
that exist in significant numbers in the national ...