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 Michael Edward Flores on May 23, 2018, and
Plaintiff's Opening Brief [DE 22], filed November 13,
2018. Plaintiff requests that the decision of the
Administrative Law Judge be reversed and remanded for further
proceedings. On December 11, 2018, the Commissioner filed a
response, and on January 9, 2019, Plaintiff filed a reply.
For the following reasons, the Court grants Plaintiff's
request for remand.
28, 2014, Plaintiff filed an application for benefits
alleging disability beginning May 10, 2014. Plaintiff's
application was denied initially and upon reconsideration. On
March 7, 2017, Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”)
Diane Davis held a video hearing at which Plaintiff, with
counsel, and a vocational expert (“VE”)
testified. On April 27, 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 28, 2014, the application date.
2. The claimant has the following severe impairments:
fracture of the thoracic spine resulting in fusion, and mild
spinal stenosis of lumbar spine.
3. The claimant does not have an impairment or combination of
impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of
one of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart
P, Appendix 1.
4. The claimant has the residual functional capacity
(“RFC”) to perform light work as defined in 20
C.F.R. § 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b). The claimant can
lift and/or carry 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds
frequently. He can stand and/or walk for about six hours
total and sit for about six hours total. The claimant can
frequently balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, crawl, and climb
ramps and stairs. He can occasionally climb ladders, ropes,
and scaffolds. The claimant should avoid concentrated
exposure to temperature extremes, vibration, and hazards,
such as unprotected heights.
5. The claimant is unable to perform any past relevant work.
6. The claimant was 47 years old, which is defined as a
younger individual age 18-49, on the date the application was
filed. The claimant subsequently changed to an individual
closely approaching advanced age.
7. The claimant has at least a high school education and is
able to communicate in English.
8. Considering the claimant's age, education, work
experience, and residual functional capacity, there are jobs
that exist in significant numbers in the national economy
that the claimant can perform.
Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review,
leaving the ALJ's decision the ...