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 Allen Woods, Jr., on March 27, 2018, and
Plaintiff's Opening Brief [DE 17], filed August 9, 2018.
Plaintiff requests that the decision of the Administrative
Law Judge be reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
On August 24, 2018, the Commissioner filed a response, and on
October 4, 2018, Plaintiff filed a reply.
February 28, 2015, Plaintiff filed an application for
benefits alleging that he became disabled on November 29,
2014. Plaintiff's application was denied initially and
upon consideration. On December 16, 2016, Administrative Law
Judge (“ALJ”) Diane S. Davis held a video
hearing, at which Plaintiff, with an attorney, and a
vocational expert (“VE”) testified. On March 29,
2017, 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 the Commissioner.
made the following findings under the required five-step
1. The claimant's date last insured is December 31, 2019.
2. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since November 29, 2014, the alleged onset date.
3. The claimant has the following severe impairments:
diabetes mellitus with associated neuropathy, a combination
of cervical radiculopathy and degenerative joint disease of
the right shoulder, and a heroin use disorder.
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 medium work as defined in 20
C.F.R. § 404.1567(c) except that he is further limited
to work which avoids concentrated exposure to hazards and can
occasionally reach overhead with the dominant right upper
extremity, with no limitation involving the left upper
6. The claimant is unable to perform any past relevant work.
7. The claimant was born on November 9, 1957 and was 57 years
old, which is defined as an individual of 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 using the
Medical-Vocational Rules as a framework supports a finding
that the claimant is “not disabled, ” ...