United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division
KENNETH L. RHODE, Plaintiff,
ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
E. MARTIN MAGISTRATE JUDGE
matter is before the Court on a Complaint [DE 1], filed by
Plaintiff Kenneth L. Rhode on March 29, 2018, and
Plaintiff's Opening Brief [DE 19], filed September 24,
2018. Plaintiff requests that the decision of the
Administrative Law Judge be reversed and remanded for further
proceedings. On November 6, 2018, the Commissioner filed a
response, and on November 26, 2018, Plaintiff filed a reply.
18, 2014, Plaintiff filed an application for benefits
alleging that he became disabled on January 15, 2013.
Plaintiff's application was denied initially and upon
reconsideration. On August 3, 2016, Administrative Law Judge
(“ALJ”) William Spalo held a video hearing at
which Plaintiff, with an attorney, and a vocational expert
(“VE”) testified. On August 29, 2016, the ALJ
issued a decision finding that Plaintiff was not disabled.
made the following findings under the required five-step
1. The claimant met the insured status of the Social Security
Act through December 31, 2018.
2. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since October 26, 2013, the day after the previous
3. The claimant has severe impairments: left vision loss
secondary to an optic arterial stroke, diabetes mellitus, and
4. 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.
5. The claimant had the residual functional capacity
(“RFC”) to perform light work, except: no
climbing ladders, ropes, or scaffolds. No. crawling with only
occasional climbing ramps or stairs; occasional balancing,
stooping, crouching, and kneeling. Claimant must avoid all
exposure to all hazards. Claimant has no visual acuity, but
retains the ability to tolerate occasional depth perception,
but he cannot drive as a condition of employment.
6. The claimant is capable of performing past relevant work
as a private investigator. This work does not require the
performance of work-related activities precluded by the
7. The claimant has not been under a disability, as defined
in the Social Security Act, from October 26, 2013, through
the date of the decision.
Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review,
leaving the ALJ's decision the final decision of the
parties filed forms of consent to have this case assigned to
a United States Magistrate Judge to conduct all further
proceedings and to ...