Engstrand, Ronald v. Colvin, Carolyn et al

Filing 28

Transmission of Notice of Appeal, Appeal Information Sheet, Docketing Statement, Opinion and Order, Judgment and Docket Sheet to Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals re: 24 Notice of Appeal, (Attachments: # 1 Appeal Information Sheet, # 2 Docketing Statement, # 3 Opinion and Order, # 4 Judgment, # 5 Docket Sheet) (lak)

CASE NO. 14-______
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
RONALD MICHAEL ENGSTAND,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
vs.

Case No.: 13-cv-436

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner 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
[phone]

Plaintiff-Appellant, Ronald Michael Engstrand, 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 B. Crabb, District Judge, dated June
2, 2014 and entered on June 2, 2012, affirming the decision of
the Defendant-Appellant, Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security, denying the plaintiffappellant’s application for a period of disability and
disability insurance benefits under 42 U.S.C. §§216(i) and
223. Dkt. 22, 23.

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 1st day of June,
2014.

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.

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §405(g), Plaintiff, Engstram,
sought judicial review of the final administrative
decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (SSA
or Commissioner). The matter was filed and
submitted on briefs in August to December of 2013.

B.

The matter was based upon an applications filed on
July 2, 2010. R431.

D.

The applications were denied on September 28, 2010
and the reconsideration denied on February 17, 2011.
R76, 85, 95, 104.

2

E.

On March 22, 2012, ALJ Teresa L. Hoskins-Hart issued a
nine-page decision. R10-18.

F.

The ALJ found that Engstram met the insured status
requirements of the Social Security Act through September
30, 2008, had not engaged in substantial gainful activity
since July 1, 2007, the alleged onset date and had as severe
impairments the following severe impairments: diabetes
mellitus with early neuropathy, and mild osteoarthritis of
the right hip and knee. R12-13.

G.

She found that Engstram did not have an impairment or
combination of impairments that met or medically equaled
the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part
404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. R14.

H.

In assessing the residual functional capacity, the ALJ
found that Engstram had the ability to perform medium
work except for the inability perform kneeling or
crouching more than frequently, and the inability to work
in environments with concentrated exposure to extreme
heat, cold, or humidity. R14.

I.

At step four, the ALJ found that Engstram was unable to
perform any past relevant work. R16.

J.

The ALJ found that Engstram was born on April 30, 1963,
so he had been a "younger individual" age 18-49,
throughout all relevant periods, and had at least a 'high
school' education and is able to communicate in English.
R17.

K.

Transferability of job skills was not material to the
determination of disability because using the MedicalVocational Rules as a framework supported a finding that
the claimant was "not disabled," whether or not the
claimant had transferable job skills. R17.

L.

The ALJ found that “Considering his age, education, work
experience, and residual functional capacity, there (were)
jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national
economy that the claimant (could) perform.” R17.

M.

Accordingly, Engstram had not been under a disability, as
defined in the Social Security Act, from July 1, 2007,
through the date of this decision. R18. Based on the
application for a period of disability and disability

3

insurance benefits filed on July 1, 2010 Engstram was not
disabled under sections 216(i) and 223(d) of the Social
Security Act and based on the application for
supplemental security income filed on July 1, 2010, the
Engstram was not disabled under section 1614(a)(3)(A) of
the Social Security Act. R18.

L.

Engstram filed in Federal District Court, Western
District of Wisconsin on June 2, 2013. Dkt. No. 1.

M.

The ALJ erred in failing to given the opinion of the
treating physician proper weight and with regard to
her credibility findings and consideration in
accordance with law.

I.

Following the submission of briefs, the Honorable
Barbara B. Crabb, United States District Judge, issued
an Opinion and Order on June 2, 2014 upholding the
decision the Commissioner’s final decision.

Dated this 1st day of August, 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
[phone]

4