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 Brian Keith Franklin on November 8, 2017, and
Plaintiff's Brief in Support of Reversing the Decision of
the Commissioner of Social Security [DE 22], filed June 8,
2018. Plaintiff requests that the decision of the
Administrative Law Judge be reversed and remanded for further
proceedings. On July 23, 2018, the Commissioner filed a
response, and on August 2, 2018, Plaintiff filed a reply.
21, 2010, Plaintiff filed an application for benefits
alleging that he became disabled on October 14, 2008.
Plaintiff's application was denied initially and upon
reconsideration. After an initial hearing and appeal to the
Northern District of Illinois, the case was remanded back to
the agency on September 7, 2016, and on September 30, 2016,
the Appeals Council remanded the case back to the ALJ. On
June 23, 2017, Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”)
Jose Anglada held a hearing at which Plaintiff, with an
attorney, and a vocational expert (“VE”)
testified. On July 19, 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 July 21, 2010, the application date.
2. The claimant has severe impairments: arthralgias, gout,
carpal tunnel syndrome, and affective disorder.
3. The claimant does not have an impairment or combination of
impairments that meet or medically equal the severity of one
the listed impairments in 20 CFR 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1.
4. The claimant had the residual functional capacity to
perform light work except that he is unable to work at
heights or frequently climb ladders. He may only occasionally
crouch, kneel, or crawl. He should avoid operation of moving
or dangerous machinery. He is limited to frequently handling
with the dominant right upper extremity due to mild carpal
tunnel syndrome (although according to regulatory definition,
the impairment is considered severe). He is limited to
performing simple, routine tasks involving no more than
simple, short instructions and simple work-related decisions.
He may only have casual contact with the general public.
5. The claimant is unable to perform any past relevant work.
6. The claimant was 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 at least a high school education and is
able to communicate in English.
8. 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 he has transferable job skills.
9. Considering the claimant's age, education, work
experience, and residual functional capacity, there are jobs
that exist in significant numbers in the national ...