United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division
OPINION AND ORDER
E. MARTIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT MAGISTRATE JUDGE
matter is before the Court on a Complaint [DE 1], filed by
Plaintiff Matthew Peter Guyton on June 25, 2018, and
Plaintiff's Brief in Support of Reversing the Decision of
the Commissioner of Social Security [DE 18], filed December
26, 2018. Plaintiff requests that the decision of the
Administrative Law Judge be reversed and remanded for further
proceedings. On February 25, 2019, the Commissioner filed a
response, and on March 14, 2019, Plaintiff filed a reply.
March 28, 2014, Plaintiff filed an application for benefits
alleging that he became disabled on December 31, 2010.
Plaintiff's application was denied initially and upon
reconsideration. On November 21, 2016, Administrative Law
Judge (“ALJ”) Deborah E. Ellis 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 has not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since March 28, 2014, the application date.
2. The claimant has the following severe impairments:
osteoarthritis, degenerative disc disease, depression, and
3. 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
4. The claimant has the residual functional capacity
(“RFC”) to perform light work as defined in 20
C.F.R. § 416.967(c) except that he could stand and walk
for two hours in an eight-hour workday. He can occasionally
climb ramps, stairs, ladders, ropes, and scaffolds. He can
occasionally balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl. He can
occasionally interact with the general public. The claimant
can engage in simple, routine work as to understanding and
carrying out instructions.
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 and subsequently changed age category to closely
approaching advanced age.
7. The claimant has a limited 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 the claimant 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 ...