Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Franklin v. Berryhill

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division

March 11, 2019

BRIAN KEITH FRANKLIN, Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Deputy Commissioner for Operations, Social Security Administration, Defendant.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          JOHN E. MARTIN MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         This 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.

         I. Background

         On July 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.

         The ALJ made the following findings under the required five-step analysis:

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 ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.