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 on October 31, 2017, and Plaintiff's Basis for
Social Security Appeal [DE 16], filed April 16, 2018.
Plaintiff requests that the decision of the Administrative
Law Judge be reversed. On May 25, 2018, the Commissioner
filed a response. Plaintiff did not file a reply, and the
time to do so has passed.
September 23, 2013, Plaintiff filed an application for
benefits alleging that she became disabled on November 26,
2008. Plaintiff's application was denied initially and
upon reconsideration. On July 14, 2016, Administrative Law
Judge (“ALJ”) Howard Kauffman held a hearing at
which Plaintiff, with an attorney representative, a medical
expert (“ME”) and a vocational expert
(“VE”) testified. On September 8, 2016, the ALJ
issued a decision finding that Plaintiff was not disabled.
The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for
review, leaving the ALJ's decision the final decision of
made the following findings under the required five-step
1. The claimant met the insured status requirements of the
Social Security Act through December 31, 2013.
2. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since September 20, 2012, the amended alleged onset
3. Through the date last insured, the claimant had the
following severe impairments: joint dysfunction of her
bilateral knees and right shoulder.
4. The claimant did not have an impairment or combination of
impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of
one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P,
5. The claimant had the residual functional capacity to lift
and/or carry 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently.
She can sit, stand, or walk for six hours per each eight-hour
workday. She cannot climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds. She
can occasionally climb ramps and stairs, balance, stoop,
kneel, crouch, and crawl. The claimant may have no exposure
to unprotected heights and moving machinery parts.
6. The claimant is unable to perform any past relevant work.
7. The claimant was 50 years old, which is defined as an
individual closely approaching advanced age, on the alleged
disability onset date.
8. The claimant has a limited education and is able to
communicate in English.
9. Transferability of job skills is not material to the
determination of disability because the claimant is
“not disabled, ” whether or not the ...