Fitzpatrick, Laurence v. Colvin, Carolyn W.
Filing
26
Transmission of Notice of Appeal, Appeal Information Sheet, Docketing Statement, Judgment and Docket Sheet to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals re: 24 Notice of Appeal by Plaintiff Laurence Fitzpatrick. (Attachments: # 1 Appeal Information Sheet, # 2 Docketing Statement, # 3 Order #22, # 4 Judgment #23, # 5 Docket Sheet) (arw)
CASE NO. 12-______
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
LAURENCE FITZPATRICK,
Plaintiff-Appellant
vs.
No. 13-CV-27-bbc
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
ActingCommissioner of Social Security,
Hon. Barbara B. Crabb
United State District Judge
Defendant-Appellee
Appeal from a Judgment from
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
DOCKETING STATEMENT
Dana W. Duncan
Attorney for the Plaintiff-Appellant
Duncan Disability Law, S.C.
State Bar I.D. No. 01008917
3930 8th Street South, Suite 201
Wisconsin Rapids, WI 54494
(715) 423-4000
Plaintiff-Appellant, Laurence Fitzpatrick, by his attorney, Dana W.
Duncan, Duncan Disability Law, S.C., submits this docketing statement
alleging the following:
1.
The District Court’s jurisdiction is contained in an appeal of
an adverse decision of the Commissioner of Social Security
under §216(i) and 223 of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.
§416(i) and 423(d).
2.
The judgment to be reviewed is an order and judgment by
the Honorable, Barbara A. Crabb, District Judge, dated
December 31, 2013 and entered on the same date, affirming
the decision of the Defendant-Appellant, Carolyn W. Colvin,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security, denying the
plaintiff-appellant’s application for a period of disability and
disability insurance benefits under 42 U.S.C. §§216(i) and
223. Dkt. 18, 19.
3.
This docketing statement is submitted pursuant to Circuit
Rule 3(c) and Circuit Rule 28(a).
4.
A Notice of Appeal was filed on or about the 21st day of
January, 2013.
5.
The Notice of Appeal from the order of the Honorable
Barbara B. Crabb, is an appeal from a final judgment
adjudicating all of the claims with respect to all parties.
6.
As procedural history:
A.
On April 4, 2011, the claimant filed a Title II
application for a period of disability and disability
insurance benefits, alleging disability beginning April
1, 2011. The claim was denied initially on June 2, 2011,
and upon reconsideration on October 6, 2011.
Thereafter, the claimant filed a written request for
hearing on November 4, 2011.
B.
The ALJ issued a decision on September 28, 2012
denying Title II benefits.
C.
The ALJ found that Fitzpatrick met the insured status
requirements of the Social Security Act through
2
December 31, 2015, had not engaged in substantial
gainful activity since April 1, 2011, the alleged onset
date and had as severe impairments: headaches, sleep
apnea, and right upper extremity impingement.
D.
The ALJ found that Fitzpatrick did not have an
impairment or combination of impairments that met
or medically equaled the severity of one of the listed
impairments hi 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix
1.
E.
He found that Fitzpatrick was capable of performing
past relevant work as a warehouse manager, client
services representative, and claims representative.
F.
Following a timely request for Review of
Administrative Decision, the Appeals Council denied
review on January 2, 2013, making the ALJ’s decision
the final decision of the Commissioner.
D.
Following the submission of briefs, the Honorable
Barbara B. Crabb, United States District Judge, issued
an Opinion and Order on December 31, 2013 and
docketed on said date which recommended that the
Commissioner’s final decision in this matter be
affirmed. A judgment was docketed on December 31,
2013 affirming the Commissioner’s Decision.
Dated this 21st day of January, 2014.
Respectfully submitted,
Duncan Disability Law, S.C.
Attorneys for the Plaintiff-Appellant
/s/ Dana W. Duncan
Dana W. Duncan
State Bar I.D. No. 01008917
3930 8th Street South, Suite 201
Wisconsin Rapids, WI 54494
(715) 423-4000
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?